Hands in Our Pockets

Most of us would probably be ok, money-wise . . . if the government weren’t constantly taking so much of our money. Even when you try to live frugally, government makes life almost impossibly expensive. I’ll give you an example, True Story-style.

Almost exactly ten years ago, I bought a used 1998 pick-up truck for $7,200. The truck was paid off the day I bought it (in cash) but government has me paying on it to this very day. I’ll be paying the government for the temporary and conditional use of this vehicle – none of us ever gets to own anything – literally forever.

Well, until the truck falls apart – or I do. Whichever occurs first.

The sum is not small.

First, there’s the Temporary and Conditional Use Tax – aka, the personal property tax. I am required to pay this tax once every year, else my temporary and conditional use privileges will be rescinded. “My” truck will right quickly revert to its real owner – the government. In exactly the same way that the house you think you own will revert to its real owner – the government – if you decline to pay the Temporary and Conditional Use Tax – aka the real estate tax.

Anyhow. The tax on my truck is based on its “book value” – a largely arbitrary number issued by the National Automobile Dealer Association – very much of a piece with the way real estate assessors arbitrarily decree the home you think you own to be worth “x” dollars, for purposes of the Temporary and Conditional Use Tax on that.

I tried to limit the damage – what I “owe” – by purchasing a used vehicle; one that – at the time of purchase – was under five figures. Even so, the Temporary and Conditional Use Tax is still about $100 annually, even today.

People who buy a new vehicle really get stomped. The Temporary and Conditional Use Tax on a new/recent model vehicle with a “book value” of $30,000 or so is typically several hundred annually . . . for years.

I only got scalped – so far – for about $1,500.

If that were the end of it, it might not be so bad. But – as anyone who owns (allegedly) a vehicle knows – it’s far from the end of it.

Ever look into the etymology of register? It derives from reg – as in king. As in: The King’s Stuff. Not your stuff. The king will allow you to possess whatever it is for a period of time – provided you pay for the privilege. You therefore are required – forced, never forget – to hand over a certain sum every year in order to conditionally (and temporarily) possess the vehicle. If you do not, in many areas, the government claims legal authority to simply take the vehicle. Even if it is not driven. Even if it is in your (ahem) privately owned parking spot or garage.

So much for private – and property, for that matter.

Well, they demand about $60 every year to “register” the truck. There goes another $600 – so far. Remember: These tithes at gunpoint are perpetual. There is no end to them, ever – not so long as you live and wish to perpetuate the fiction that you own anything.

The government also forces me to have the truck “inspected” for “safety” each year. It doesn’t matter that I – not wanting to die or cause others to die – keep up with maintenance, check the brakes and tires and don’t need an air gun-wielding goon to confirm for me that the truck’s “safe” to drive. That’s just the cosmetic flapdoodle, the stuff they tell you to make it go down smoother. Just like the Motorists Tax – aka, traffic fines – the issue is the money, above all.

In this case, $20 a pop – per vehicle, mind – every single year. There’s another $200 down the gullet of government (these past ten years; more yet to come).

The Big One, though, is insurance – perhaps the greatest Long Con (next to inflation) yet invented by government. And it is government’s con – notwithstanding that insurance companies are nominally “private” concerns. Because they use government to filch your pockets – and the two of them tag-team us at every opportunity. The only thing “private” about insurance companies is the profit they make off our hides.

Though I’ve not incurred so much as a penny’s losses to these corporatist mafiosi, they make me an offer I can’t refuse each and every year – with government serving as their Luca Brasi in the event I need convincing. Despite a perfect DMV record (thanks, V1) with not so much as a jaywalking ticket to my credit in years – and no accidents at all – they still tune me up for about $250 a year(that’s just for the ’98 truck; I have another truck, plus several motorcycles).

And that’s for a worthless (to me) policy that only covers damage I might do to someone else. If someone else actually hits me, I lose. My truck is not “covered.”

I’d rather just skip it, but of course that’s not allowed. Bye-bye $2,500 – and counting (so far).

So, let’s see: $1,500 for the Temporary and Conditional Use Tax; another $600 to “register” it every year; plus $200 to “inspect” it . . . and another $2,500 to “cover” it (well, to cover the non-harm I’ve caused to . . . no one).

Grand total?

$4,800 – to “own” (and be allowed temporary and conditional use of) an almost 20 year-old truck I bought used ten years ago for $7,200. Put another way, government has hit me up – just to date – for an amount equivalent to about 70 percent of the price I paid for the truck. If I hold on to the truck for another five years or so, government will have cost me more than the truck cost me.

And people wonder why they’re feeling pinched.

Don’t forget: You and I are paying all these various forms of tributum using funds that have already been decimated by government before we ever laid hands on the increasingly worthless scrip. Federal/state and Socialist Insecurity – poof! – there goes 28 percent right off the top. More, if your are “rich” – though such specimens are increasingly hard to come by.

Maybe it’s time we pinched back…

Please consider supporting EPautos.com. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning. Our donate button is here.

For those not Pay Pal-inclined, you can mail us at the following:
EPautos

237 COMMENTS

Keynesian jokes. Why not Austrian jokes? Hopefully forcing too many jokes about Austrian and Keynesian economics doesn’t eventually lead to a shortage of them: Here goes:

What do you call 100 Austrian Economists at the bottom of the ocean?
A reaction to monetary policy incompatible with individual time preference.

What does Mises call beheading a room full of meditating buddhist yogis?
Gardening!

Have you ever read the grand tome written by that most notable of Austrian economist in China, Lu Mi?
It’s called – “Hunan Action.”

How many Austrian economists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
All of them. First, Ludwig von Mises has to screw the bulb in personally. Then the rest of the Austrian economists have to spend the next 80 years writing about what a good job he did.

What’s an Austrian economist’s favorite movie?
Dogma.

How would you describe that play about Austrian capital theory?
I’d say it was a roundabout production

How many Austrians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
None. It was screwed in a priori.

How did Professor Hayek ask his students to line up?
In spontaneous order.

Why did the Austrian Economist loose his job as a supermarket cashier?
He couldn’t figure out how to impute the prices without knowing what you were making for dinner.

A group of macroeconomists are sitting on a panel at a conference discussing developments in the discipline. In a heated exchange, the New Keynesian says to the Real Business Cyclist: “You guys have put macroeconomics back twenty years with this nonsense! The Real Business Cyclist smiles and says “So you DO believe in negative productivity shocks after all.”

Ludwig von Mises found consumer indifference “impossible to observe in practice.” It just bugged them too much that he was watching.

Two middle-age women walk into a bar. The first one said, “I really want a husband.” The second one, who was also an Austrian economist, said “I can prove that you are lying.”

Popper: Some people can’t understand how anyone can dislike chocolate. Colleague: Who can’t understand how anyone can dislike chocolate?
Popper: I can’t.

There are three kinds of Austrian economists. Those who can count and those who cannot.

Paying someone $20,000 to eat shit is no more helpful to the economy than it is for the supply of pick pocketers to expand at a rate of 2% per year. If the pick pocketers as a group spend there money with higher velocity than the working men, this is still not a net benefit to mankind. If the pick pocketing group expands by 2% per year then eventually civilization will be destroyed.

If we entrust some benevolent currency czar to decide the rate at which pick pocketing expands then we will probably see civilization destroyed even sooner because only a really bad person or a really dumb person would accept such a job. If a dumb person accepts the job then soon they will be made into a puppet from the people on this planet who wish to do the most harm in the least amount of time.

After the three economists give their advice the czar of the central board of economic growth, he recommends a Nobel prize be given to economist #2 and appoints him to an important advisors board to the monetary czar. Economist #1 is made the secretary of transportation. Economist # 3 is the subject of a New York Times in a article titled “The professor who didn’t believe in math.

Fox news does a expose on Economist #3 in a piece titled “Is anti-semitism on the rise?. The Department of Homeland Security Fusion Intelligence Center releases a report saying that those equating “government currency creation with common counterfeiting are subject to violent acts of terrorism.

Economist # 3 is scheduled for a huge debate with other economist on C-Span but before it happens he is found in his apartment hanging from a rope with three shots to the head in a apparent suicide.

How many Austrian economists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Both of them.

Father: “You borrowed money from me for college, and you blew it on drugs?” Son: “Well, you expanded my money supply, and I misallocated it!”

“The Austrian says, no you are both wrong sell me your shirts for $5, the “signal” will save us.” No, the Austrian says, “Quit daydreaming and help me to finish this boat and collect enough coconuts for the voyage. There are no shortcuts which obviate the need for productive work, savings and investment, you lazy-assed monetary cranks.”

Having a methodological objection to mathematic modeling based on abstractions and assumptions is in no way equivalent to not understanding mathematical modeling.

Conan, what is best in life? Market process, spontaneous order, and to hear the lamentation of the Keynesians.

An individual with a sufficiently high time preference for having a methodological objection to mathematic modeling will discount the cost of not understanding mathematical modeling in the future. An individual with a sufficiently high time preference for understanding mathematical modeling will discount the cost of not having a methodological objection to mathematic modeling in the future. When the two meet there will be an exchange and the market will have determined an equivalence between understanding mathematical modeling and having a methodological objection to mathematic modeling. Therefore only Austrians truly understand mathematical modeling.

What did the Austrian do when the Fed cut interest rates by 1/4 point?
Blew his life savings on some roundabout production.

Where can i learn more about economist-assisted suicide?

The optimist thinks the glass is half-full; the pessimist thinks the glass is half-empty; the Austrian economist thinks capital was malinvested in oversized glassware.

Q How many conservative economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A1 None. The darkness will cause the light bulb to change by itself.
A2 None. If the government would just leave it alone, it would screw itself in.
A3 None. There is no need to change the light bulb. The lighting in the room was previously overly bright due to lightblub manipulations which resulted in the light burning out. The room is currently descending to a level of darkness at which time the conditions for re-illumination will be in place.

@Bevin – Kinda like:
Nationally, local government workers comprised the majority of the state and local government workforce with 14.0 million local government employees costing (adding to GDP) 88 billion dollars plus future benefits. As Keynes said “that’s a bingo!”

These days marijuana cases clear in about three months and the Sheriff’s Department is flush with cash, thanks to what some are calling “the Mendocino model.” To others, it’s the Mendocino shakedown.

The transformation began when Eyster dusted off a section of the California health and safety code, intended to reimburse police for the cost of cleaning up meth labs and pot grows, and retooled it for a modern Mendocino County.
Mendocino pot

In exchange for paying restitution, which Eyster sets at $50 per plant and $500 per pound of processed pot seized, eligible suspects can plead to a misdemeanor and get probation. (The law says restitution is reimbursement for actual enforcement costs, but defendants waive an itemized accounting and state the amount owed is “reasonable.”)

The relinquishing of allegedly ill-gotten gains seized in separate civil forfeiture actions — cash, trucks and the occasional tractor — also might be part of the deal offered under Eyster’s “global resolutions.”

The restitution program is available only to those without troublesome criminal backgrounds who have not wildly overstepped California’s somewhat gray laws on medical marijuana. Those who trespass, grow on public lands or degrade the environment need not apply.
lRelated Kern County farmers question just how ‘clean’ new coal plant would be

Science
Kern County farmers question just how ‘clean’ new coal plant would be

See all related
8

Eyster said it’s a complex calculation that he jots out himself, by hand, on the back of each case file. The size of a grow is not necessarily the deciding factor: In one current case, the defendants have records indicating they are supplying 1,500 medical users, Eyster said. Another case involved just four pounds of processed marijuana, but evidence indicated the defendant was selling for profit.

Participants must agree to random searches while on probation, comply with medical marijuana laws and grow only for personal use.

Restitution funds, which have topped $3.7 million since early 2011, go directly to the investigating agencies. Asset forfeitures — the $4.4 million in cash and goods seized in 2013 was nearly double the previous year — are shared by the state, the district attorney’s office and local law enforcement.

Among those who have criticized the program is Mendocino County Superior Court Judge Clay Brennan, who during a restitution hearing last year for a man with an 800-plant grow blasted it as “extortion of defendants.”

It would be great if only intentional violent initiations of force were considered crimes.

If that isn’t going to happen, then I’d prefer to see this Mendocino model adopted in all classes of “crime” in more jurisdictions, and see if it’s less wrong than what they currently do.

American humans are the stupidest mammals in the world in this regard. No other species or nation wastes so much of their commonwealth on caging and guarding their fellow animals. It’s dumber and more destructive than flightless dodo birds marching off the side of a cliff like lemming in a lemming run.

Forcing the fittest to feed and provide for the least fit, is a slap in Darwin’s face. It’s the kind of crap that gets you extinct in a very short time frame.

Given current system now existing:
Mod 1
Reclassify nearly all crimes as civil matters not criminal.
Mod 2
What used to be a crime is now a breach of civil peace and a dollar judgment is immediately assessed against you.

Due process is you logging onto a system or making a phone call and working with a municipal debt collector of the peace trying to get the judgment reduced or rescinded entirely.

Get rid of courtroom and judge dog and pony shows and other useless Snail Jail crap that no one cares about except for big ticket crimes.

Mod 3
No more free shit. Everyone gets the same welfare they get now, but it is entered as a debt to the city they live in.

If you get caught breaking rules, you’ll have more to pay. If you fail to make your payments to those running the cities, you’ll find your life on hold and in pending status and everything you do will be scrutinized and held in moderation before its approved.

Threatening to build debt prisons is a deflection tactic to keep the status quo we already have. It isn’t necessarily a logical conclusion to my proposal.

Why can’t the world be run with low overhead and minimal authoritarian interaction just like this website?

My idea involves amazon, google, microsoft, and other big internet and call center enterprises you patronize from home having sufficient juice to overcome the dinosaur bricks and mortar incarceration businesses.

Why not let the systems that attract millions of willing customers also run the mandatory systems of keeping the peace and filling the public treasuries?

“This is government at work. Extorting the public to live lavishly on what they can confiscate. This is the source of the civil unrest in the years ahead. ”

The Actor Alec Baldwin was arrested Tuesday in New York City and issued two summonses — one for disorderly conduct for arguing with a cop (IRS Agent on Wheels) — after riding a bicycle the wrong way on a New York street, police said. NYC is so insane with attacking people for everything to hand them tickets I do not even like going there any more. They are just trying to ticket you for anything they can claim. Who ever heard of it being a crime to ride a bike on the opposite side of the road. Honestly, it makes more sense for you can see a car coming to avoid an accident.

The NYPD (New York Police Department) have hit squads of 3 unmarked cars and a tow truck that targets limos. If the company has any outstanding tickets, they seize the car even if the driver was not the person who originally got the ticket. They will not even accept credit cards for payment. Unless the current driver pays cash, they tow the car and could care less where he is from.

Back in 2011, the city council in San Bernardino California voted 5-0 to kill their red-light camera system. Since the cameras were installed in 2005, the program had brought them little but headaches. In 2008, the city was caught shortening the timing of yellow lights in order to write up more citations. I personally know a man who was a municipal judge who quit a town in New Jersey because the politicians told him they wanted him to charge maximum fines to everyone even if they had no money to pay then and there.

The California appellate court ruled that the city’s contract with the red-light camera service American Traffic Solutions (ATS) was in violation of state law. Indeed, the ATS is a company that preys upon the average person to enrich themselves – a rather disgusting company. The cameras created such a local uproar for San Bernardino that in the end the city paid ATS $110,000 to get out of a contract that would have kept the cameras in place until 2014. These companies get a piece of the action like fund managers. It is in their financial interest to write as many tickets they can even if totally dishonest.

This is all about revenue – not safety. Cities are reducing the time for a yellow-light to raise more revenue. Others are so aggressive, you get a ticket if you stopped just 6 inches beyond the white line in New Jersey. Proof this is all about revenue, you do not get points on your license for a red-light camera ticket – just the fine. In Washington, D.C., red-light cameras raised $15.6 million in their first 30 months of operation. Chicago makes more than $60 million annually from this new type of oppression. New Jersey has cameras that ticket you for a turn on a red light for they post small signs for exceptions and ticket people all the time.

This is huge business. It’s such big business that in 2001, Lockheed Martin sold their red-light camera division to another company, Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), for $800 million. ACS is based in Dallas and is ranked at number 341 on the 2010 Fortune 500 list.

This is part of the cycle. Cities hunt people for anything they can fine. This is government at work. Extorting the public to live lavishly on what they can confiscate. This is the source of the civil unrest in the years ahead. The City of London England is plagued by the same trend. There they go out of their way to hide the cameras to increase revenue.http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/

By the way, just watched the latest installment of Game of Thrones. I gotta tell ya, next to the Breaker of Chains, Tyrion Lannister the Dwarf is the most intriguing character on the show. His birth defect made him more of a “mensch” than any of his clan. His outrage at being railroaded after saving everyone in King’s Landing was thrilling.

She is a good Queen, and never makes it to Westeros. I just hated hearing her say “I’ll do what Queens do, I’ll rule.” Horrible words to hear.

I also consider it illegitimate for a state to commit murder. You have a right to self-defense including killing your aggressor. But I don’t consider that a transferable right to any sort of institution whatsoever.

Lots of similarities to Queen Isabella of Spain, who declared all Americans citizens of the Spanish crown and thus not eligible to be enslaved.

Although she forbade the vanquished native American people to be sold as slaves, her orders were ignored.

Eventually Daenerys is going to ride away with one of her dragons and live the rest of her life with him.

Of course there is one more way to get Game of Thrones online and that’s piracy. Game of Thrones is the most pirated TV show on the web year after year. HBO doesn’t seem to mind if this is your final and only solution to getting the show because they’re in the business of creating future customers and they hope you’ll subscribe when you’re physically or financially able to do so in the future.

You wrote: The root of the word government combine as “to control minds.” The root
of the word “govern” is control and the root of “ment” is mind.
Without control over minds via the media, the government will lose all
control.

That sums it up perfectly!

“To him, the great mystery of politics was obedience to rulers. Why in the world do people agree to be looted and otherwise oppressed by government overlords? It is not just fear, Boetie explains in “The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude,” for our consent is required. And that consent can be non-violently withdrawn.[4]”
— Lew Rockwell, on the great French libertarian theorist Etienne de la Boetie

Governments must be eliminated. But not by violently overthrowing them. A government that is violently overthrown will merely be replaced by another government different in name but identical in substance.

Governments must be eliminated by making enough people realize that they neither need nor ought to want governments in the first place. When enough people realize that fact, governments will vanish from the face of the earth without firing a shot, and people will finally be truly free.
•
Edit
•
Reply
•
Share ›

“Governments must be eliminated. But not by violently overthrowing them. A government that is violently overthrown will merely be replaced by another government different in name but identical in substance.”

Agreed. But I think they will not tolerate the message of government illegitimacy when it starts to spread. There will be defensive violence, I’m afraid.

True. No disagreement there. Look at the goonvermin are criminalizing anti-government thought. Ron Paul supporters, Bundy supporters, all sorts of dissidents are being classified as “terrorists.”

I’m sure you know that my point was slightly different. What I was saying was that if a government has to be violently overthrown, it probably means the society still contains too many sheeple who believe that government is “necessary.” Hence the need for violence.

If that happens to be the case, then even if the current government is successfully overthrown, the inner beliefs of the sheeple will lead to the near instant reappearance of a clone to replace it.

It is only when enough people within a society have been disabused of the myth of authority that overthrowing a government will not lead to its immediate replacement by another one identical in substance.

Yes, I understand your point, Bevin. I hope you’re right. I hope we can get there, but it will require our intellect overcoming our human nature. Is it not in our nature to dominate others? Can we overcome that? I’m not sure.

I think “survival of the fittest” and especially “strength in numbers” will always lead us back to government. So far, it always has.

dollars to donuts to whoever dies with the most toys “wins” – except that whether the run is long, short or in between, that winner is still just keynes-plain dead, & not schrödinger-fancycat alivedead – waiting for, (or “working for”) enough people to disregard this existential main anchor, & the man projected/made jungle between here & there, to “disabuse themselves of the myth of authority”, in favor of the phlogiston that will be theirs if only they will set match to myth…well, you might as well define “beach”, then romanticratically (romantic + bureaucrat) lionize (like the one from the wiz of oz) counting up the grains of sand that comprise it.

most of hamilton’s key political supporters – & friends, business associates, & relatives – were holders of federal bonds (especially war bonds). more gov revenue was needed, hamilton believed, so that these gov bondholders could be paid their principle & interest. in addition, hamilton believed in issuing even more bonds for the sake of enlarging the public debt. he thought this would tie the wealthy of the country (who would be the primary purchasers of gov bonds) to the gov, thereby creating a formidable political pressure group in favor of bigger gov & higher taxation.

hamilton’s dubious & convoluted economic arguments for debt accumulation served as a smoke screen for what sumner called the “controlling motive”: “political expediency.” as sumner noted, hamilton himself said he wanted a large national debt because of “its tendency to strengthen our infant gov by increasing the number of ligaments between the gov & the interests of individuals.” in other words, hamilton wanted to tie the interests of the more affluent citizens to the state. since they would be the primary gov bondholders, they would have an interest in continued borrowing & continued tax increases to assure that they would be paid their principle & interest. just as today’s welfare recipients are tied to gov & can always be counted on to vote for its expansion, in hamilton’s day he wanted to tie the wealthy to the state as a permanent, big gov lobbying class.

douglas adair, an editor of the federalist papers, explained: with devious brilliance, hamilton set out, by a program of class legislation, to unite the propertied interests of the eastern seaboard into a cohesive administration party, while at the same time he attempted to make the executive dominant over the congress by a lavish use of the spoils system. in carrying out his scheme…hamilton transformed every financial transaction of the treasury dept into an orgy of speculation & graft in which selected senators, congressmen, & certain of their richer constituents throughout the nation participated.

~ snips from dilorenzo’s “hamilton’s curse”

none of which was new with, invented by, hamilton. same old, same old. but fast forward to now. try counting the threads in today’s bondsmen “bondholder” metapestry. the beach sand project looks feasible, in comparison. where’s gulliver? you can’t even see him, anymore. pessimists “see” a corpse rolled up in a carpet. optimists “see” a covenantal chalice-ark chrysalis & bade bide the “metamorphosis” in anticipation of the new & improved monarch butterfly that’s bound to emerge. realists see the po box, & its coffin dimensions, its directionality, know that carpets are mostly toxic dirt-capturing skeins, go for as much hardwood, tile, good old terra firma, barefooting/moccasins/maybe those odd looking toe shoes as they can get. because life is short. and you only get the one (as far as anyone knows). nap-kins, for some few, (very few), while at the table, dirt nap forever after. this is the fulcrum, & saxe’s elephant, still unseen, is on the other end of the teeter-totter.

but…metastasized ”hamiltonian” interlocked cartels are still everywhere, & angiogenesis-less interstices don’t, or might not, have fast interstates or internet or financing or the “positive” blowback-fallout that tumor tissue does…that’s the bitch o’ bastiat – the unseen is omni-directional & there’s photodesythesizing neutrons in it. tor’s been posting recently on med-tech horizon mirages, for one cartel aspect example. i once subscribed to that magazine.

but…big but, huge but, bertha butt buts: cartels control, they’re anti-competitive, they’re rents maximizing (as opposed trying for unreliable profits), they skim the cream off all their purposely slow-improving, obsolescence maximizing, cash-deluging crops, with both eyes fixed on “reinvesting” in maintaining/increasing hegemony & increasing the juke box volume as it continuously plays c.c. rider (cartel control rider). they do all this, as they always have, via “the myth of authority” that explodes out of the barrel of the govgun (which includes supernatural & extraterrestrial mysticalgovguns) because…pogo stick possum is a two-pouched, binarily bouncing, dichotomously dick-headed creature, that knows the enemy is “the other pouch”, & he likes it, is self-satisfied, has his en croute, pouchenga-dancing, identity thereby…& there 99 such creatures for every nap-ster. molon labe & we’ll fight in the shade? oy vey….

Boothe, just what difference do you see between federal, state or any variety of local government? They are all functioning the same way, and all have the same goals… the growth of their power and “authority.” There is no real difference between them. I spent about 20 years working within the Libertarian Party, and have a comprehensive understanding of the fact that they are all politicians, looking for a piece of that power and “authority.” Do they wish to steal less? How wonderful of them.

Until ALL politicians are denied that power and bogus authority, nothing will change.

MamaLiberty – I don’t see any difference between any of them; only my level of accessibility to them. At the U.S. House level you have virtually no access. At the U.S. Senate level even less. At the state level, here at least, I can talk to the State Representative very frequently and do so. She is rabidly pro-gun and anti-tax. But just like me, she is only one voice. But as a member of the house, her voice is louder than mine. I have to be pragmatic enough to make use of my access. Sitting back and hoping that somehow, someway we will deny all politicians power and authority in the short term, barring Divine intervention, is an absurdity to me. Getting legislation passed to deny federal agents the authority to operate within the state of Missouri is a different proposition altogether: http://www.guns.com/2014/05/05/bill-nullifying-federal-gun-laws-passes-missouri-senate/ Is it perfect? No. Will it be challenged? Of course. But at least we’re trying to do something about federal encroachment.

The same goes for working with the NRA and less so, the GOA. They ain’t perfect, but without them we’d have lost our guns UK and Australia style long ago. I’m an idealist just like you. But having fought the good fight in home-schooling, gun rights and other causes I considered noble over the years, I’ve come to realize that you use the tools and weapons you have available to you. Both NRA and HSLDA “constitutional lawyers” informed me how the system really works, the Constitution be damned. I didn’t like it then and I don’t like it now; the system is a deck stacked against us. But if we were in a firefight, I ran out of ammo and you looked over at me and said “Don’t pick up that AK, that’s the enemy’s weapon and we only use guns and ammo made in America in a union shop”, I’d figure you’d lost your mind.

Do I think the GOP is here to save me? Not no, but hell no! But if I can use one or more of them and their power to move us closer to our goal of Liberty, regardless of their true motivation, that’s what I’m gonna do. Holding out for some ethereal future ideal of denying “them” legitimacy and authority will accomplish exactly zero. There are two kinds of people in this world Mama; doers and drifters. If you’re really a doer, you know good and well that you won’t clean out the stalls by standing outside the barn looking at the pitchfork and waiting for the manure to go away; you gotta wade in, start shoveling and (pun intended) let the chips fall where they may.

Good points Bevin – If we use a multi-pronged attack, we stand a much better chance of winning. I am a guerrilla at heart; hit and run / shoot and scoot. I’m going to look for chinks in the enemy’s armor and hit there. I’m not so idealistic that I have to be an atheist that smokes to pass Ayn Rand’s muster to fight Leviathan. C’mon, it’s about taking the beast down, not how we do it. “Oh, but we must only use stone tipped spears to hunt buffalo.” Yeah, bull-pucky! I’ll use my Spencer and we’ll have one heck of a barbeque going on while the rest of the tribe is still tracking that one wounded animal. Idealism is just great for theoretical purposes. But for the here and now, I have to be practical. Let’s take wine for example: Even if I make my own (and I do) I have to pay sales tax on the yeast, sugar, pectic enzyme and the carboy I make it in. So is it “tax free” wine? No. But I pay a lot less that way than I do if I buy a gallon of wine at the store. Eventually, when my vines are mature, I may be able to reduce my tax burden even more. But the fact is I had to pay sales tax on the grapevines when I bought them, the wire and anchors for the trellis and the gas for my tiller when I put them in. So no matter what, I’m drinking taxed wine. Sure; it sucks. But I’m paying a heckuva lot less than I would if I payed the federal excise on that wine. Pragmatic? Sure it is. But if you’re looking for ideals or perfection in this world, you’re gonna be sorely disappointed.

In any event, given the fact that trying to organize anarchists is like herding cats, it’s what’s going to happen whether we like it or not! LOL!

I can live with it. As long as the end result is a critical mass of mankind waking up and rejecting the notion that they need to obey other people merely because they “represent the government.”

I know I probably won’t live to see it, but I’m happy just to be a tiny part of the new paradigm that is effecting this unprecedented transformation in human consciousness.

There’s something we probably tend to forget. With the exception of the Icelandic Republic and Medieval Ireland, the human race has never had genuine, 100% freedom.

Everyone alive today, regardless of chronological age, is part of the generation that just might effect this historic change. Often the going is tough. But think about how important our mission is.

Steven Spielberg is wrong. The “Greatest Generation” was not my father’s WWII generation. The Greatest Generation will be the generation that tips mankind over from thousands of years of maxarchism to anarchism.

Just out of curiosity, if Ron’s minarchist approach is broadly acceptable to you, why have you been so hostile to my scripture based anarcho-capitalism? I won’t argue over religion here, but you haven’t seemed like you have had a “well, I don’t agree but at least he supports liberty” attitude towards me and what I believe. Am I just misunderstanding and if not what am I missing?

Moving back toward the issue at hand, there’s a point at which things get tricky. There’s a fine line between working with the system and becomming part of it. I’m not sure exactly where that line is. Rand Paul (note: I said Rand on purpose, even though I realize you were talking about Ron) seems right on the borderline for me. Ted Cruz is obviously (at least to me) part of the system. Ron Paul was clearly working for liberty within the system. I feel like Amash and Massie are as well (to lesser degrees than Ron). Where one draws the line is somewhat subjective. But, I feel like the extreme of “I won’t support or work with anyone who isn’t openly promoting perfect anarcho-capitalism” is a dangerous extreme. I also think that saying you’ll support any “lesser evil” is also a dangerous extreme.

A big part of the problem is that most people either can’t comprehend anarcho-capitalism, or they don’t think they can. I admit I’m part of the problem there as I don’t understand nearly enough, and there good questions about this philosophy that I couldn’t easily answer. For me I’m not too worried about these things because I’m a deontologist and if coercion is wrong than its wrong, even if I can’t perfectly explain the alternative. Most people are fundamentally utilitarian though, even many Christians, so if they can’t figure out how something will work better, they “know what they’ve got” so to speak. Minarchy, for all its logical flaws (and there are many) is a lot easier to explain. Its easy to explain why you don’t want to go to war in iraq or why the local pot user shouldn’t go to jail or why the mere risk that one might shoot up a school is not an excuse for banning guns. Its a lot harder to explain to someone how a country could raise up an army to defend itself when attacked without a ta base, or how aggressors could be punished without any government police or court system. Now, I of course agree that one way or another those things must be done. But, its hard to explain. Certainly its hard on the political trail. It would be impossible for Ron to explain those nuances while running for president, even when his primary goal was to educate and not to win.

RE: “With the exception of the Icelandic Republic and Medieval Ireland, the human race has never had genuine, 100% freedom.”

I’d add the western territories of the unitedstate, pre-civil war, or there-bouts.

Perhaps also, some island nations.

I wonder, maybe some tribes in South America, too? Idk.

I also wonder how the people in the native tribes of North America pre-Columbus, and upwards, would respond?

David wrote, “I feel like the extreme of “I won’t support or work with anyone who isn’t openly promoting perfect anarcho-capitalism” is a dangerous extreme.”

I seem to recall reading some Rothbard or L.V.M. saying, “that’s the end goal, why focus on half-way? It’s counter-productive to do so”. … Or something like that.
I mean, have you seen the film, ‘The Robe’?
Should the Roman Tribute have yielded to the Caesar (the worst of them all, Caligula) and supported/submitted/and worked within, The System?
Far too many so-called Christians do so today to one degree or another.
For yourself, I’d suggest reading up on, ‘private justice’, include in the search terms, ‘The Daily Bell’.
…One. Person. At. A. Time.

What I mean by that last line is: the whole world goes crazy in groups, it’s only ‘one by one’ that men regain their sanity.

I supported Ron Paul 30 years ago, when I lived in Houston, Texas. Some of my libertarian friends there were his campaign staffers.

This is a man who has been inside the government all that time yet never sold out. He often found himself voting no against unconstitutional bills alone. He was able to resist peer pressures for all that time.

There is also ample reason to believe that he is actually a market anarchist, but is deliberately not “coming out of the closet” in order to continue acting a middleman who can convert people from within the system. Everyone over at LRC is market anarchist. Lew Rockwell himself served as Ron Paul’s advisor. I think the signs are pretty clear.

MamaLiberty – I think you misunderstood my original intent when I wrote “hard won, an inch at a time.” I meant that quite literally as in taking ground, not in the “we’ll work through the system” sense. I’ve tried to work through the system (and still do when I think it has merit) for years; to little avail until recently. I do have hope, because I see the states starting to push back against the Federales and a growing desire for Liberty amongst the young. You and I are pretty much on the same page with respect to what can be done at the individual level.

When the day comes that their fiat currency fails, and as we here know it will, some of us may have to put guns to people’s heads to make them give up what they’ve stolen or intend to steal; “direct self defense” as you put it. You are quite correct; making head-on war with “the beast” is not a viable option. There are indeed many more “hunters” out there than there are armed state functionaries; but really, how many of them have balls? How many are actually “three percenters”? Very few I suspect. Most just talk trash and few actually have their kit in order and are ready and willing to go do “the deed” when the SHTF. I hope I’m wrong, but I see how many “self-starters” there are around me…

My original point was that with a militarized police force in every town (a.k.a. SWAT teams) and many of them sporting one of those 2700 Cougar Mine Resistant Armor Protected (MRAP) vehicles DHS so graciously provided, that’s not just “out psyched” but out spent as well. And even if we really are only “out psyched” Vicky and Sammy Weaver, the Branch Davidians, Chris Dorner and many other “enemies of the state” are no less dead. I wasn’t saying that we don’t outnumber them. What I was trying to point out is that they are trained, organized, well equipped and brainwashed to see Mr. & Mrs. America as the enemy and a source of revenue, all at our expense.

The only way to fix that is to take away the funding. That means holding our noses and contacting our legislators, operating off paper and out of the system as much as possible and not giving them one thin dime that we can avoid. The problem is they still have the power of the printing press and that’s the real “cushion” they’re using to forestall the day of reckoning along with the theft of our wealth through the backdoor tax of inflation. Until you get the states themselves to observe the law and not allow any thing other than gold or silver to be money, it will be business as usual until we hit the Zimbabwe wall. And that won’t happen for a very long time, because the masses aren’t allowed to move more than 10 grand in or out a bank at a time and can’t hold any notes larger than a Ben Franklin.

We’ve been “braced for impact” for years now and anticipating the day when the lights don’t work anymore. Life will go on. It did for millennia prior to our modern conveniences. I expect that breakdowns in the infrastructure will lead to the untimely demise of many more poor souls due to lack of water, heat, food and sanitation than the gun-vermin will dispense with during a large scale SHTF scenario. It may even be orchestrated, because as Stalin proved with the Kulaks, you can’t shoot back at starvation. Same end results; no one to blame.

I, like you, hope to out-plan, outsmart and outlive them. And I don’t intend to just “survive” either; I intend to thrive in spite of the PTB. And along the way, I intend to show as many people the truth as I can; just like I did with “my” state representative a couple of days ago. She’d never seen the Minneapolis Fed’s online inflation calculator or held $160 Trillion in Zim notes in her hands before. I could tell that it really opened her eyes. We are gaining ground in some state legislatures right now. There is a civil war starting in the GOP; Liberty candidates are trying to move in. Let’s pray that they succeed this time. Will it fix everything? No. Might it help. We can only wait and see.

“If you’re stuck with one or the other, I think the choice is obvious.”

Boothe, the error here is supposing that one must choose between these two. Doing so merely accepts the bogus authority of those who do the stealing. I choose neither one. Oh, I can be robbed at gunpoint, of course, but there is no real benefit in choosing one mugger over another – even if it is possible to do so. Robbing “foreigners” is still theft, and only results in poor trade and poor overall relationships.

What we must eventually eliminate is the bogus legitimacy of ANY tax and spend regime.

MamaLiberty – I don’t disagree with any of what you wrote. Furthermore, I don’t grant the armed robbers that steal an ever growing portion of the fruits or our labor year in and year out any legitimacy. However, I realize as unpleasant as the fact may be, that they have more men with guns at their disposal, all organized to steal in a way that the mob can only dream about and whatever we can do to minimize and mitigate that is desirable. I understand the theoretical benefits of open borders and free trade.

Trouble is, NAFTA, CAFTA, “free trade zones”, etc. are nothing of the sort. And as long as a group of pseudo-socialistic fascist sociopaths are running things (and they are), we can’t have open borders either. Taking back our rights and restoring some semblance of Liberty will be hard won, an inch at a time. Thieves never give up their ill gotten loot willingly by reasoning with them. When the thieves are at the grand scale of gunvernment you can bet they’ll resist returning our stolen property that much more. All I can do at my level is attempt to educate, preserve as much of the fruits of my labor as I can and try to sway state and federal legislators to restore our rights and cut spending.

I am a firm believer in voluntary associations and contracts absent government intrusion and have been most of my adult life. But as the old saying goes, just because you’re not interested in politics doesn’t mean they aren’t interested in you. We do a real good job of exposing what’s going on at this site. I’ve seen many other venues doing the same thing. How much has changed for the better so far? Little? None? That doesn’t mean we give up.

In fact I have seen legislation recently here and in other states challenging federal authority. That’s a good sign and a good start. We’ll have to do the same thing with taxes. Push them back to what the supreme law of the land actually allows and then work to decrease them from there. Everything mankind does is flawed Mama. Everything. So the way I see it, we should strive for ideals and take the best we can get.

Hoping we will achieve true non-violent mutually cooperative anarchy is admirable and the belief of a very small thinking minority. But you’re dealing with super majority of “average” people and generally speaking put four of them together and they can’t even agree what to have on a pizza. Almost invariably three of them will take the easy way out and defer to the natural leader in the group. At that point you have a de facto system of government in place. Pretty soon that same leader will be making other decisions for the group and voila! you have government, albeit on a small scale, once again.

The next thing you know he / she will want to be paid for their “service” some will agree and voluntarily hand over some of their property for “the common good.” Then dear leader will proceed to hire an enforcer to take from the members that now don’t want any part of the group and you have taxes through distraint again. It’s human nature and I suspect you know all about it after all these years in nursing.

But even worse, once the psychopaths see the gravy train “public service” has become, they flock in and make it even worse for the productive. As I just got through explaining to my wife earlier, the only thing those people understand is the threat of superior force (witness the BLM / Bundy stand-off). Now stand by and watch as the FBI & IRS pick off Bundy’s supporters one at a time. How do you propose to fix that? Throw a copy of Atlas Shrugged on some FBI functionary’s desk? Sit them down and make them listen to Rothbard e-books? I think you know what the the ugly truth is and I’m afraid we ain’t there yet.

“Taking back our rights and restoring some semblance of Liberty will be hard won, an inch at a time.”

Actually, Boothe, history does not support that at all. “Inch at a time” is a good way to stay right where you are or worse, because the reality is one inch forward and ten back. The truth that so few will accept is that all human interactions are a mixed bag. Not all are good, and not all are bad.

The truth is that all the forms of socialism and living by theft are self limiting, and would self destruct far faster if good people didn’t keep trying to cushion the blow, or work “within the system” – even in the name of dismantling it. Those things do lend legitimacy to the systems, no matter how much we say the opposite.

And no, I don’t think that we must give in, not in the least, because the powers that be have a lot of guns, etc. Do you know the actual number of these government gunman? Compare that just to the number of hunters, and then with all other gun owners… We are not outnumbered… we’ve been out psyched. Do you really know how many government employees, cops or otherwise, will be happy to stand and fight US when their own homes are burning and their loved ones are in danger? I wager not too many, even if they are otherwise totally evil.

That time is coming, and the controllers are doing it to themselves. The collapse of the economy and the fiat money they have engineered will accomplish far more than all of our guns could if we were even interested in direct confrontations. Most of us are not. Our guns are for immediate self defense, not a war.

All we really need to do is get out of the way, prepare to survive, and wait patiently. Don’t fight them… don’t concede any kind of defeat. Outlive them.

Mama, of course the PTB are going to simply give up their power, esp in the way of armed forces and let this country go back to some semblance of freedom is ridiculous. I’m the last person to call for armed resistance or armed revolt but that’s how every country i can think of has been changed. It won’t be pretty and a great many won’t survive on both sides. The last thing the people should do is allow the PTB, and we do know many of who these people are, get away with their lives. They need to be purged. I don’t expect to live through this shitty and anyone who does is simply fooling themselves. Changing things at the voting booth? When has that ever worked? Once electrical power, petroleum power and food are scare the SWHTF and it won’t be nice but it will bring us back to something with a semblance of freedom.

You misunderstand, eight… I am most certainly not saying that “voting” will make any difference, good grief. And I know very well it is not going to be easy or pretty. Millions may die, and just about everyone is going to suffer. All I said is that direct armed confrontation is not going to accomplish what some think or hope it will. There are so many other better things to do with our lives while the socialist/communist thing self destructs.

Armed revolution usually results in the victor setting up the NEXT set of rulers and controllers, just as happened after the American Revolution. There may not be any viable alternative in the long run, but we can hope.

The key to genuine change is a mass transformation in political consciousness, not willingness to resort to violence.

Don’t get me wrong. Violence (in self-defense) may at some point be necessary. But the main obstacle standing in the way of substantive political change is not any reluctance to resort to violence.

The overthrow of a statist system must be preceded by a genuine transformation in political consciousness.

Unless a critical mass of the public first undergoes a genuine transformation in political consciousness, any violent overthrow of the existing system will merely lead to its replacement by a another regime, different in name but identical in substance. The actors will change, but the play will remain unchanged.

The “Great Silent Majority” has bought into the Myth of Authority. That is the reason — the only reason — goon vermin LEOs of all stripes are able to get away with the abuses chronicled in Cop Block and Pro Libertate.

“Mike in Wichita” argues that “Death and Taxes are Forever.” But that is a classic case of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Death is something nature imposes upon mankind. Unless some SF type breakthrough is made, death is inevitable.

Taxes by contrast, are merely something that mankind has imposed on itself. The alleged “inevitability of taxation” is the result of a mass delusion. All that is required to be free of taxation, is a change in political consciousness.

That change happens to be going on right now, even as we argue. Just look at all the Millennials who are self-proclaimed free market anarchists.

I too am heartened by Millenials. They manage to conduct their relations despite the efforts of the gatekeepers of authority to quash them – for that I say “bravo!”
– – – –

Death is a misnomer. Only about 10% of our cells die when the authoritarians declare human death has occurred. For 90% of our beings, life would continue in a new mode of anarchy, finally free of the tyranny of the musculoskeletal authorities that be.

These points that many of us have raised are the key to the entire statist “House of Cards.”

I mention “House of Cards” because I just finished watching both seasons of this morbidly fascinating TV series.

Basically the protagonist, a typical Demopublican politician, is a blend of Ellsworth Toohey and Peter Keating.

According to Wikipedia,

In finding a writer to adapt the series, Fincher stated that they needed someone who could faithfully translate parliamentary politics to Washington.”[3] Beau Willimon, who has served as an aide to Charles Schumer, Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton,[13] was hired and completed the pilot script in early 2011.[3] Willimon saw the opportunity to create an entirely new series from the original and deepen its overall story.[3]

I’d say Willimon succeeded in spades. The cast of characters in the series bears an uncanny resemblance to all the sleazeball ‘Murcan pols we love to hate.

And as I mentioned at the outset, they exist only because We the Sheeple “reify” them.

“The only way to have NO taxes is to have no group of people empowered to steal… and that means no non-voluntary government. If people want government of any sort, they should certainly have it… and pay for it.”

and then the no government sorts will be easier to pillage then they are now. Can’t have enemies of our State living right in among us don’tcha know: running kids down in school cross walks, smoking dope, etc.

“and then the no government sorts will be easier to pillage then they are now. ”

You think so? 🙂 I’d invite you out to our gun club range to observe just how “easy” it would be to attack and “pillage” our little community. We are all well armed, and we know how to use them. We are also not really interested in being pillaged. Thank you very much…

Oh, and nobody runs down kids in a school crosswalk here either. And what some of us might “smoke” is none of your damned business.

MamaLiberty – Amen, sister! MFW has some serious control freak issues doesn’t he? He enjoys the residual benefits of what was once a (relatively) free Constitutional Republic without a clue as to how it actually was supposed to work. MFW is of the “ya gotta pay yer taxes” mindset and thinks the police actually deter crime (disregarding the preponderance of evidence that the police themselves are all too often the perps. The concept of voluntary taxes, in other words imposts, excises, duties and tariffs, being the only reasonably fair way to collect revenue is lost on someone like him. The idea the we are also ultimately responsible for our own safety and security (and not at the expense of our neighbors) is also an alien concept to him. Yeah, he needs to come pillage this ol’ country boy’s place sometime. Hawgs gotta’ eat, same as buzzards… 😉

Unable to think things through for himself from a clean slate, he equates “realism” with “the world I know.”

He never stops to consider that the world he knows was once very different, and was dramatically transformed by people whom he dismisses as “unrealistic,” who cling to “pipe dreams.”

One of the supreme ironies is that today’s sheeple invariably imagines that had he lived in the distant past, he would have been among the tiny minority of freethinkers who challenged the now discredited orthodoxy.

We know this is not true of course, because today they would be free market anarchists instead of mainstream conservatives or liberals.

“The concept of voluntary taxes, in other words imposts, excises, duties and tariffs, being the only reasonably fair way to collect revenue”

What is “fair,” and how are these taxes not theft? “Revenue” for what? If we are responsible for ourselves and our safety, what would this loot be used for anyway?

Say you had a large farm and sold vegetables. Do you think it would be wise to extort “imposts, excises, duties and tariffs” from those who came to buy your stuff? Don’t you think the customers might go on down the road to the next farmer who made no effort to rob them?

MamaLiberty that’s why I said “reasonably fair”; taxation is theft, plain and simple. But I’m pragmatic enough to realize, that like the common cold, ticks and nosy neighbors, it’s not something that’s going to go away in my lifetime. But let’s say you put a “luxury” excise on something like shampoo or a “sin” tax on liquor; as long as I’m free to make my own, then I can purposely avoid those taxes by not buying the product. In theory then those who produce those goods would end up going out of business; unfair. In practice people will still buy the product for convenience’ sake at the marked up price. It was originally intended to limit the size of government at the source of revenue. With imposts, duties and tariffs you are attempting to make foreigners foot the bill for government (you want to do business here, you pay for our military, treasury, administration, etc.). Sounds good in theory, but once you let the genie out of the bottle… My point was that if “the people” had adhered to the original concepts of imposts, excises, duties and tariffs, the central government would have remained small and relatively powerless. That’s never the case because ambitious psychopaths take over, sell out to their cronies and tyranny follows. It goes on from the courthouse to the White House. The best that we, the remnant, can hope for it is to limit our contact with Leviathan as much as possible and educate others. As far as a truly “fair” tax goes, there’s no such thing. But if you compare taxes to medical conditions, which would you rather have? Poison ivy (a tariff) which may affect you once in a while but is avoidable or chronic untreatable liver disease (an income tax) that will guarantee you misery for the rest of your life? If you’re stuck with one or the other, I think the choice is obvious.

Minus the intent, it’s Not just the hand in the pocket [lots of pretty girls could do that, with no objection] rather, it’s the freaking attitude of The Bastards:

The Union Tribune. “More than 200,000 property owners in San Diego County could see their property tax bill rise between 10 and 20 percent this year, a new state report says. Those owners have been receiving a break on their property tax bills since housing values plummeted during the Great Recession and were reassessed downward. Now, as values have recovered, tax bills can do the same. There is no cap on how much a property’s assessed value can recover each year if it was reduced during an economic downturn, the report from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office says.”

“‘Nobody likes when their taxes go up but in this case taxes are going back up to where they would have been,’ said Mark Goldman, a loan officer and real-estate lecturer at San Diego State University. ‘They got a break, that’s over with, and so it’s unfortunate but the rules are the rules.’”

The problem is CAPSLOCK. Once established, the CAPS grow like cancerous tumors within the sentences of article replies until they choke out its life.

e.g.:

“The ff trIED to insTITute some safeguards aGAINst the mALIGNant gROWth of the sTATe they were insTITuting. They did a pretty GOOd job – it stood for not QUITe a century. Certainly, if you didn’t CAPSLOCK the words of this post, a reasonable person would be better able to read and glean what it is saying. ” JMHO.

Eric, you’re just too nice. What you need is great big BAN HAMMER for trolls like ANPOG. Every post he makes is an ad for his diseased website and ideology. Band-aiding the problem. If you can’t keep trolls like this from taking over good threads, your readership will despair and leave. Just what they want, incidentally…

DR
I would argue people that trying to intimidate Eric into conforming with the status quo are also a problem. Why don’t you take a risk and post something great, instead of endlessly circle jerking the same old cliches?

This guy spent maybe $10 for his own domain, and he considers his philosophy a great achievement. What’s in your wallet?

But who am I? I’m unschooled in the ways of CAPSLOCK and of saying of really IMPORTANT things!

not to DespaiR…a bit of diseasedness reared up, stallion-like, when i looked around recently to see how “speed kills” was handled back in horse power days, & in the pre-cartelinsurance days of mechanical horsepower. all i found were stats & dates; evidently people carried their own water, & saddles, back in those primitive times.

Horses killed in other, more direct ways as well. As difﬁcult as it may be to believe given their low speeds, horse-drawn vehicles were far deadlier than their modern counterparts. In New York in 1900, 200 persons were killed by horses and horse-drawn vehicles. This contrasts with 344 auto-related fatalities in New York in 2003; given the modern city’s greater population, this means the fatality rate per capita in the horse era was roughly 75 percent higher than today. Data from Chicago show that in 1916 there were 16.9 horse-related fatalities for each 10,000 horse-drawn vehicles; this is nearly seven times the city’s fatality rate per auto in 1997.

an unexpected bit of saddlery spectrum, equine homobestiality, had not yet been sewn up the insurance cartel, apparently, as of 2005. so other, preparatory, laws were passed. by now, riders may be available on homowner policies, at least in some parts of the country.

my understanding is that cretaceous-paleogene was the dino extinction event. colon-perforation was proximate for pinyan.

I don’t want them banned. Ideological opposition is comparable to market competition. Competition keeps everybody on their toes, keeps the consumers happy (those curious about libertarianism who have found this place). And maybe a miracle will happen occasionally and a cloveristic mind will be opened.

Anen-o-meA puts a fatal nail in your anpog idea, as it currently exists:

“All this boils down to the fact that you can’t rule living, thinking beings with paper. It is passive, they are active, and they can always route around it. You need an entire structural change.”

– Why not retool your philosophy such that is malleable and active? Take the time to know the living breathing active beings that inhabit this website? Each of us takes his hammer to his anvil or his sickle to his field and shapes or reaps in his own way.

We have no desire to all get on some page, and live as a few paragraphs in someone elses book. We are real people.

The best part of epautos is hundreds of skid marks on hundreds of highways.

Thousands of people who read what is written here and stopped running. They reached over, unlatched the door, and jumped out of the hamster wheel of state and began to live their lives for themselves.

Your comment: “Anen-o-meA puts a fatal nail in your anpog idea, as it currently exists:

“All this boils down to the fact that you can’t rule living, thinking beings with paper. It is passive, they are active, and they can always route around it. You need an entire structural change.”

Regarding the nail: No such thing is true.

What I have put forth is simply this: The construct of maximum human liberty, with the least amount of government. Whilst it is true that paper cannot rule, it is also true that in order for justice to be done, there needs to be law, else you will live in lawlessness.

The paper sets forth the fixed reference point upon which all understand. Without the paper, then all are adrift, and just anything goes. An unwritten law is no law at all.

Your political philosophy is limited government conservatism. Just an observation – not a slam. You believe that government is not necessarily (by definition) an impinger of human liberty; or rather, that some degree of impingement is necessary/inevitable in order to secure a “greater good.”

This is not a new paradigm. Again, no slam meant.

I advocate an ethical system in which no one may be aggressed against for any reason whatsoever by any other individual or group. In which the majority does not rule. In which the only rule is: Don’t cause harm to others – and if you do cause harm, you (and no one else) are ethically responsible for the harm you’ve caused.

Period.

All interactions are voluntary. Complete freedom to associate – or not. Live – and let live.

I applaud your taking the time and effort to write down your prescription for change of American society. A second reddit commenter calls it the NAP with questionable economic ideas attached.

As I was taught in school: “nosce te ipsum.” Know thyself. This aphorism applies to those whose boasts exceed what they are. Such as website commenters.

“Know thyself” is a warning to pay little attention to the opinion of the multitude. It’s far easier for us to comment about Eric and your writing, than it is for you to run your sites. I for one have enjoyed reading Eric’s critiques of your ideas.
– – –

Regarding the written word: Things written on paper are just stuffed velveteen rabbits, until they become real to the public.

A compelling case for this site is: being a rare assemblage where people not only talk about the future, but have the skills and experience to bring about this better future into physical fruition through their own hands and minds.

You said: “When gunverment prints money to fund things such as a ‘public bank’ this decreases the purchasing power of the money “the people” hold in their hands. That’s a form of taxation, it is also theft.

“Your perceptions of money and how gunverment operates are flawed.”

It is your perception of my solution which is flawed, egregiously so!

First, had you taken the time to read what I’ve put to the page at my blog, you would have noted that the Constitution would be amended to specifically state that the amount of specie (currency) allowed to be in circulation at any given moment would be strictly limited.

That would be so in order to stringently hold both inflation, and deflation to within very defined limits.

Additionally, since the amount of specie in circulation would define the exchange rate for precious metals, then it would define the relative value of that specie at all times.

Most people are given to believe that yet other people —the politicians, and bureaucrats— are more suited to making decisions for them, than they themselves. The scheme is akin to ‘set and forget,’ for it presumes once someone is elected or appointed to an office of public trust, that he will always be responsible, and honourable. “

Anarchy means of course eschewing all Ramseyite Official Reek propaganda. And a vow never to be either Ramsey or Reek.

Beyond that, it entails the process of peeling the onion of your Theon Greyjoy birth slavery construct, since this also is not your true self. If you want the role of your father and your son done right, do it yourself.

How and by what mechanism would an anpog overlord determine how much money would be in circulation?
That is the very problem of The Fed as well, they do not know how much money to put into circulation or how much to remove, or when. Your anpog system is the same, it’s just supposedly ‘limited’.

Will an anpog overlord send counterfeiters to prison? How will they monitor for counterfeiters?

How does the anpog system “define the exchange rate for precious metals”?
Why wouldn’t the free market determine this exchange rate based on subjective value?

You write, “the Constitution would be amended to specifically state that the amount of specie (currency) allowed to be in circulation at any given moment would be strictly limited.”

You mean like how the constitution defines what a Dollar is right now?
And how’s that working?

Most importantly, why would anyone want to use an anpog Dollar?
What happens if no one uses it?
If there’s no taxes, why even bother using an anpog Dollar? People would use what they wanted as money. What’s to stop them?

I’m reading your statements, alright, anpog.
You wrote, “the Constitution would be amended to specifically state that the amount of specie (currency) allowed to be in circulation at any given moment would be strictly limited.

That would be so in order to stringently hold both inflation, and deflation to within very defined limits.”

How do ‘the people’ define these limits?
How and by what mechanism would “the people” determine how much money would be in circulation?” Do they just guess?
Seems to me some bureaucrat would be doing that under your proposed system. Or, some special group of ‘the people’. Within “very defined limits” of course.
Which also means certain people would get loans, certain others would not. The ones who received the money first would benefit, just like it is now. Only maybe it’d be more limited?

How do you stop people from extending credit with this system and thereby inflating the currency? I don’t see how you can.

There really is nothing new to your system.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

…And, yeah, I did have, “any other questions” I already asked them, but you ignored them for some reason.

You’re guilty of operating in an entirely artificial paradigm where money is concerned, and perhaps it’s not your fault. What you suggest is the essence of the monetary policies put forth by that ‘economist’ idiot from the UK, Keynes.

If you have ten marbles, and loan them out, do you propose to say that you’ll be getting an eleventh marble even though it doesn’t exist?

The fact remains that a state-owned, and operated bank would ~not~ need to charge interest on most loans, period. If you have a family member who needs some money to make a purchase, and he later repays you in full, would you feel somehow cheated because you got nothing extra in return?

In reading your reply to BrentP. I think that you spent zero time going through Gary North’s links describing why your Greenbacker system will not work, does not work, and is based on theft. As are all fiat monetary systems.

You’re an odd one, that’s for sure. You think you’re promoting libertarian ideals, but you’re statist to the core.
I guess you’re one of those beltarians I hear about?

anpog wrote, “a state-owned, and operated bank” – Yeah, like a state owned anything is, “the people”.
Oh, it’s “the people” alright, only you and I ain’t one of “the people” in that instance. Yeesh.

In sound money or fixed money systems the rate of interest is determined by the amount of savings and the demand. The lower the savings and higher the demand the higher the interest rate. Furthermore the cost to operate the bank is non-zero and must be paid for in some way.

To keep interest rates at zero you must be able to satisfy the demand for loans and pay to operate the bank. This means you must create or otherwise obtain more money to drive interest rates to zero. This isn’t loaning money to your cousin Bob. This where you’ve got say $1,000,000,000 to loan and there is a demand of $4,000,000,000 at zero interest. but if you get interest up to 10% demand drops to $1,000,000. Interest rates are how supply and demand equalize.

You say the banks are state run. Fine. A fixed money system, zero interest rates, run by the institution with the monopoly on legal violence. This brings a new solution to the table, taxation. Your state bank can confiscate the money to pay for its operation and supply money for loans.

You’ve just created a system where government takes the people’s money and loans it back to them or to other people. You’ve just turned most everyone into debt slaves to the political office holders. Congratulations, you’ve done exactly what the student loan program does.

Anpog – If you understood free market economics, then you would understand that trying to limit the amount of currency in circulation at any one time cannot work, will not work and never has worked. The original constitutional premise that no state shall make anything other than gold or silver money, was to ensure a fluid money supply without resorting to bills of credit, fiat currency or “legal tender” such as we have now. The market is too vast for any central authority to do anything other than establish standard denominations in specie and let the quantity float. That floating part is “the people” deciding how much money circulates and what the actual prices and wages will be, All without some central authority doing anything besides ensuring that the money is what it says it is (i.e. 0.75 oz. fine silver, 0.10 oz. fine gold, 0.5 oz. copper, etc.).

The fact that you are using either precious metals or industrial metals (i.e. nickel and copper) as the medium of exchange creates a self setting price structure as well as self limiting money supply. Left alone it works very well. It wasn’t until congress sold out to the transnational thieves we call banksters, that the U.S. economy really started failing for the rest us to the benefit of the wealthy elite. It’s called a boom – bust cycle and it’s orchestrated repeatedly to consolidate real wealth (i.e. land, factories, rail roads, mines, etc.) into the hands of the few at bargain basement prices every few years. Your theory of a currency supply limited by this ethereal “the people” which is going to be set by a super majority that believe money is “free” and that the world owes them something (they already support candidates that hand out tax money like it’s so much trash) is doomed at birth. Folks who are already voting themselves money out of the treasury in between episodes of Dancing With the Stars are going to successfully set national economic policy by establishing a money supply limit? As others have pointed out, it will simply be set by bureaucrats, the people will go back to watching fuuhtball and you’ll end up in the same boat you’re in right now. What are you smoking by the way? Must be some good shit…

You wrote: “I see you’ve given a lot of thought to your system, but in the end, it’s still a system of oppression of the minority by an majority appointed authority. It’s inevitable conclusion is tyranny.”

Do tell: Precisely ~how~ is holding people accountable for their untoward acts against others, to be seen as some kind of tyranny?

Direct quote from my blog:

“No man-made law has ever stopped anything from happening.

“All we really need is but one all-inclusive law, and it is just this: If you harm another’s life, liberty, and/or property in a real and measurable way, then you shall be held to account relative to the harm done, and the intent, or negligence —as such may be shown— under which the harm was initiated. Let the restitution, and punishment —if any— fit the crime.

“All other law is nought but an excuse to engage in endless oppression by matter of degree.
The essence of all law is power, and power left unrestrained or untended, becomes unto itself its own supreme authority, existing without limits, for it may be ‘interpreted’ at will to mean just anything its wielder professes or describes, regardless.

“The bottom line: If what you are doing is harming no one else in a real, and measurable way, then your acts can not rise to judicial notice, and you MUST be left unmolested by busybody control freaks.”

Murder, assault, robbery and rape are wrong, regardless of any “laws.’ The most practical way to deal with them is for the aggressor to meet his death or great bodily harm at the hands of his intended victim or their guardians.

No government of any sort is required for people to defend themselves from such evil, and no government ever formed has actually been able, much less willing, to do a good job of defending people anyway. Governments of all kinds have historically been among the greatest perpetrators of these wrongs, killing, maiming and destroying the lives of billions of people down through the ages.

I now suspect that ANPOG is soldier of the Clover army of trolls who is here to derail meaningful discussion (his M.O. appears to be the same, to include refusal to answer direct, simple questions and continuing to harp on his talking points long after they’ve been obliterated by fact and logic). It might be time to consign him to the “ignore” room.

In no case have any of my points been —as you would have it— obliterated, but any degree of fact, or logic.

If anything, what I’ve been encountering is an obstinacy to discuss anything beyond your own talking points.

I get the distinct impression that several posters here are lovers of the so-called ‘federal reserve,’ private banks wanting to rape the bejesus out of their ‘customers,’ and corporations which see nothing wrong with turning the lot of us into paupers for buck.

Oh, and then there’s last comment of yours: “It might be time to consign him to the “ignore” room.”

Yeah: Instead of cogently, and intelligently debating an issue, you’d rather avoid any of that with the —ahem— ‘silent treatment.’

THAT, in and of itself, reveals =>YOU<= to be the very small mind you are.

Well, that goes without saying in the entirely ~personal~ sense. But then, you’re speaking of self-defence which is a right of every living being.

But otherwise, you’re up against something else: Written law. Written law is that which defines the limits of human action, or demands certain actions on the part of others. The thought there is: Accountability.

anpog said – “Well, that goes without saying in the entirely ~personal~ sense.”

That’s all that I’m concerned with; my own personal accountability. I’ll leave others to their own business until they attempt to harm me.

anpog said – “But otherwise, you’re up against something else: Written law. Written law is that which defines the limits of human action, or demands certain actions on the part of others. The thought there is: Accountability. So, where does that fit into your scheme of things?”

I desire no control over other people through written law. I don’t wish to “define limits of human action”. I only wish to make mutually beneficial, voluntary interactions with others.

Your comment: “To what authority shall I justify my actions? What right do my peers have to require an action of me? Why must it always come down to a group of people (government) making demands of me?”

Is it your thought that you should be completely unaccountable for your actions?

What if you were to commit the essence of murder? Should you be free to do so again, and again?

Anapog doesn’t realize his thinking is still inside the Myth of Authority conceptual box.

He still hasn’t broken out of his conceptual prison. He doesn’t realize that until he does so, his inside the box “logic” will always lead him to the same false conclusions about the “need for an ultimate authority.”

Eric we GET!!! that any Tax is 100% unacceptable to you. BUT…….most folks are also well aware that your desired condition of NAPanarchy is never going to come to pass and even if your sort ever managed to establish a little corner of NAP heaven it would quickly be destroyed by the nearest adjoining State. That’s Reality.

In the Real World Property Tax applied in a non-discriminating manner by the States and their sub-divisions is far from the worst way to fund a Government.

Constitutionally speaking, if 80% of the People agree that no treaty will be enacted which allows what’s been happening under the current paradigm, do you presume to say that the 80% are dead wrong?

Under the current paradigm of government, corporations, and their bankster butthole buddies have both bought, and sold the idiots in elected, and appointed office such as to allow the entirely egregious situation in which we now find ourselves. Those corporations, and their bankster butthole buddies manipulated the treaty language such that they now enjoy COMPLETE tax exempt status, whilst the rest of us are under the gun to work endless hours, pay heinous taxes, and live a life of misery.

The easiest way to dissect this – to determine whether it’s right (or wrong) – is to ask whether every individual involved freely consented. 80 percent “for” is not ethically sufficient to deprive the other 20 percent of their rights. Neither is 99 percent.

Rights are not up for a vote – and majority rule is not an ethically valid proposition. (If it were, then it would be ok to eat children, if a majority voted in favor.)

Now, this business of corporations. You and I may be on the same page here.

A corporation is a legal construct – it cannot have rights because it is not a person.

Moreover, corporations exist for the primary purpose of limiting liability – which is ethically dubious.

I have no argument with people pooling their resources; nor with partnerships. Neither undermines moral hazard – a necessary corollary of a truly free market.

Corporations – as currently contrived – are a problem, though.

But, note: They rely fundamentally on force (fraud and coercion, using the government’s police powers) to achieve their special advantages (and limit their liability, when they cause harm).

You stated, and then asked: “You’re description of the problem is spot on, but your solution needs work.

“For instance, what about the non-consenting 20%? Will you point guns at them to force compliance? How is 80% morally more acceptable than 51%?”

The 20% will not in any way be affected. Under ANPOG, if you do not vote FOR a law, then you cannot be made to pay for its administration.

To abide by the law is the only thing which is required, and no thing else.

Additionally, as I’ve stated at my blog, at any plebiscite, any statutory law may be struck by a mere 20-plus-percent vote, as that would mean that less than 80% of the People are now in support of that law. Otherwise, the law would come up for reauthorisation at the end of its third calendar year of existence.

Further yet, NO law would be allowed which transgressed the individual rights of the People, in whatever way. So again, the only laws would be those which benefit the population as a whole.

You said: “You’re description of the problem is spot on, but your solution needs work.

“For instance, what about the non-consenting 20%? Will you point guns at them to force compliance? How is 80% morally more acceptable than 51%?”

As I state at my blog: Therefore, and therefor, it must be understood that in order for any law, rule, or regulation to become ‘the law of the land,’ that such MUST be accepted by the very largest majority, and MUST NOT in any way, manner, fashion, shape, or form —however obliquely—, infringe upon the individual rights of free people, regardless. And in those instances of the incarcerated, only those rights deemed absolutely necessary to be attenuated in order to maintain proper order.

The 80% can do whatever they please, FOR THEMSELVES. They have no authority to speak for the other 20%, or to force their will on them. The answer is to eliminate that bogus power structure completely, not tinker with it.

OK, you don’t like taxes. Got it. The REALITY though is that you will continue to pay taxes all of your days. The inconsistent pipedream of an NAP compliant World is simply not going to be accepted by 95% of the population. Think you will ever get a free pass as you speed uninsured down a residential street will parents jerk their kids off the curb as you roll over it? Try again Fool.

The vast majority of people have been conditioned to a system where they pay taxes to authority and then authority tells them how to live. Furthermore a large percentage of people in developed nations get more from government than they pay into it. So of course there is a super majority that wants things like this. The problem is that it is not sustainable system.

We will never have a better world until the use of violence is no longer considered an acceptable way of doing things. It’s been done briefly on a large enough scale to vastly increase wealth and technology but fundamentally we live in Roman times with nuclear weapons. The fundamentals must change or this species will destroy its civilization and need to start again. Which I believe it has.

A personal responsibility model where people cannot use violence to better themselves is the only way this cycle ends. But someone will say, what about someone who decides to be violent? There is no prohibition on self defense in this model, only aggression. The current model we live under permits aggression via government and restricts/prohibits self defense and that’s why it is doomed to fail. That’s why it always ends up a tiny elite, a crony class, and a welfare class sucking off the productive people. Then the productive people just eventually say ‘fuck it’ and stop working and the society collapses upon itself or it just keeps going to war until everything is consumed or both.

We can either strive to better, attempt to get through to people, or sit back and watch the planet burn.

BrentP – Excellent analysis. “Roman times with nuclear weapons” sums it up pretty well. I’ve argued for years that if “Colliseums” were opened and gladiatorial exhibitions allowed again, the NFL would be bankrupt over night. Human nature being what it is, the masses would flock to see men hack each other up, along with “haters” and “deniers” thrown to hungry wolves and lions.

I think a lot of the productive class have simply gone underground and become part of the grey / black market, which is the functional equivalent of “stop working.” Even with this police / surveillance Panopticon we live in, “they” can’t keep track of the comings and goings of 317 million Amerikans, so a lot of what they want to control falls through the bureaucratic cracks. I read that the IRS commissioner is whining because they just don’t have the budget to audit more than 1% of the federal tax returns. No one seems to care. I say good! Let’s knock that down to 1/2% and then to nothing. Next let’s start whittling away harder on the Federal Reserve and the rest of the banksters. Hit ’em all where it hurts; in the pocketbook.

I agree that we need to get through to as many people as we can. And I see more and more folks every day that are waking up to the stark reality that the Amerikan empire in slow motion collapse. They nod their heads in agreement with me when I call it like I see it. The evidence that the Constitutional Republic has become a pseudo-Socialistic / Fascist Oligarchy is now so overwhelming that only the most obtuse, delusional folks, and of course those most heavily vested in the system, deny it’s happening. And burn it eventually will, despite our best efforts. But it takes a good burn to kill the ticks, clear the under brush, invigorate the native grasses and open the pine cones so their seeds can germinate for new growth. The main thing is to stay out of the woods when the wildfire is raging. That takes a certain measure of planning, patience, skill, wits and wisdom. That means many a clover will perish when the day of cleansing comes.

Actually MFW, rolling over the curb is hard on your tires and therefore costly; so most folks won’t do it. I know of those who pay virtually no taxes already; think GE and Warren Buffet here. I also know veterans, who because of their “disabilities” collect more (from the rest of us) than they pay in. Trouble is, they’re still able to work, so how can they be 110% disabled? You explain that.

But let’s not forget about the welfare recipients filing as “head of household” doing the same thing with the “Earned Income Credit.” And don’t give me any shit about the vets “having served”, because serving the empire doesn’t have a damned thing to do with my freedom (and you are welcome to kiss this honorably discharged, good conduct medalled, expert marksman ribboned, veteran’s ass if you think otherwise).

Quite the contrary, I have less freedom now than I did 40 years ago because the “U.S.” keeps going all over the world, at my expense, pissing off the neighbors with its military and implementing seriously tyrannical laws like the NDAA because of it. You wouldn’t like it worth a tinker’s dam if the Afghan or Iraqi military were occupying Wichita and searched you, felt up your loved ones, imposed curfews, shot your dog and rifled your house, now would you? If you were any kind of man at all, you’d be trying to kill those bastards. ‘Think they feel any different about the U.S. foreign legions being on their soil doing similar things? Think about that for a while. Do you feel better about “payin’ yer taxes” now pilgrim?

What would ahppen to a State that invaded an armed anarchy?
How long would they continue to fight the anarchs?

At a certain point (admittedly invisibly distant) the State would grow weary of trying to enforce its edicts and lsing soldiers, or run out of anarchs to kill as retaliation.

So far in history – I’m a little limited there – #2 hasn’t happened. Even to Sparta or Judea (under Rome.) Even the Helots lived under Spartan rule… And there were uprisings under all the empires, but they never killed off the entire population of serfs.
You need someone to till the soil, after all, and serve as a lesson to the Prole classes…

It’s a pretty vile thing to deny a man even the possibility of ever truly owning anything more than the proverbial shirt on his back. Property taxes do exactly that. You never truly own your land or home. Ever. You must constantly generate “income” for them to take – so that you can continue to conditionally use (for the moment) “your” home/land.

You said: “It’s a pretty vile thing to deny a man even the possibility of ever truly owning anything more than the proverbial shirt on his back. Property taxes do exactly that. You never truly own your land or home. Ever.”

And under ANPOG there would be NO property or real estate taxes, ever. Nor would there be any such thing as ‘income taxes.’

The only way to have NO taxes is to have no group of people empowered to steal… and that means no non-voluntary government. If people want government of any sort, they should certainly have it… and pay for it.

Our objection to your idea isn’t that we don’t want you to have it if you want it… but that at least most of us DON’T want any part of it.

Is there an opt out clause in your system? Can others be left in peace to govern themselves without being threatened or robbed?

It’s incredible to me how people try to deride libertarians as defenseless little pansies. Let us not forget the importance of defensive force, and with no laws restricting the ownership of weapons, there would likely be “a machine gun behind every blade of grass” manned by the most strong willed, independent, self-sufficient people in the world (you know, like Americans used to be). Good luck with your invasion.

To me, a pansy is someone who relies on their masters for their protection.

What’s wrong with minarchy? The very same thing that is wrong with what we have now.

Just to a lesser extent.

The thing to understand is this: Once the principle that it’s ok to do violence to some people for the benefit of other people or to satisfy their control-freak fetish (minarchism) has been accepted, then you have ceded any future ethical basis for arguing against further such encroachments. Everything becomes a utilitarian argument. Ends justify the means. Your rights are almost beside the point.

This isn’t to say I’d not be ecstatic if we could turn the clock back to say 1965 – in terms of government’s reach into our lives. I would be. But that doesn’t mean 1965 levels of government in our lives is ideal.

even if your sort ever managed to establish a little corner of NAP heaven it would quickly be destroyed by the nearest adjoining State. That’s Reality.

Yeah, that’s right. Like Switzerland was utterly destroyed by its mighty Nazi German neighbor during World War II for failing to roll over, invite the Nazis in, and play the by the Big Bully on the Block’s rules.

switzer may be preferable to swasi, but its no nap heaven-corner. and, it never has to go the way it goes, or went. an unseen german blockade of the swiss mighta’ had everything to do with broken russian glass.

The problem is STATISM. Once established, the STATE grows like a cancerous tumor around the organs of a society until it chokes out its life. The FF tried to institute SOME safeguards against the malignant growth of the STATE they were instituting. They did a pretty good job – it stood for not quite a century. Certainly, even if you don’t redline the date of the first central bank, no reasonable person could say our constitution survived the WBTS. (
The bigger problem is that there is nowhere to run or hide. It’s a global plantation now, and the only “choices” the serfs have are related to whether you like it raw or with a little lube, doggy style or bent over a worktable. I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again. The only way to fix this is start over from scratch, but that ain’t happnin’ short of a collapse of “civilization.”
Some say that’s inevitable. I’m not sure. I’m inclined to believe that we need, as individuals, to so reduce our footprint, especially our “productivity,” which is what is truly progressively taxed, in order to “starve the beast” and reduce its ability to sustain itself. Tom Baugh has written about this in “Starve the Monkeys,” still the best single work extant in contemporary thought. Ayn Rand wrote about it in Atlas Shrugged. Others have written tomes and daily blogs – it’s all for naught if we keep feeding the beast through our taxes.
Time to be “takers,” folks. Ponder what that means, and prepare for the resumption of productive activity only when the leviathan has passed the scene. The worst thing about this is we are seeing the demise of any hope of passing along a better life to our children, something that has been the backbone of western civilization forever.
If it makes you feel any better, on the objective timeline this was started by the non-action and manipulatability of not us, not our fathers, not our grandfathers, but the several generations that preceded them.
Something to think about when you can’t sleep.

That’s pretty much what I’ve been doing. I have not filed an income tax return in over 30 years. (I left a prosperous job with a major technology company of the day to operate a small cash business and live a reduced, judgment-proof lifestyle.) I also do not collect sales tax for the local warlords. Screw ’em.

I do NOT recommend this course of action for anyone who does not fully understand and is willing and able to deal with the consequences. The federal income tax is a sham, but a zealously-enforced one. Ditto for its nasty little cousins in the States.

Decades ago those of us involved with this issue had the naive idea that the courts would do the right thing when faced with the proper arguments. Needless to say was not the case! The courts fight tooth and nail to retain the status quo, and judges are mindful of the fact they can be punished if they don’t toe the line. The IRS is one of the few entities that can take down a federal judge, who normally enjoy nearly god-like powers.

In fact a friend of mine was in court years ago for federal taxes, and this guy was particularly good at his research and staying on point. The U.S. Attorney took him aside and said to him, “Everyone once in a while we run up against someone like you — BUT WE CAN’T LET YOU WIN.” The reality is that the State will do everything and anything it needs to do in order to protect its life blood, up to and including murdering you and your family if deemed necessary. What the law says does not mean a thing. Your “rights” do not mean a thing. If you are prosecuted criminally, they will pad the jury box with Clovers who will see you as a threat to their vampire-like lifestyle. (Yes, there is an occasional win where jurors can be convinced, but it is rare, particularly with the judge acting as a second Persecutor.)

What we really need is Galt’s Gulch. But that fictional place was protected by a science-fiction type force shield. At this point I do not know where such a place could be set up or how one would keep the looters out.

If there was hope, it MUST lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 per cent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within. Its enemies, if it had any enemies, had no way of coming together or even of identifying one another. Even if the legendary Brotherhood existed, as just possibly it might, it was inconceivable that its members could ever assemble in larger numbers than twos and threes. Rebellion meant a look in the eyes, an inflexion of the voice, at the most, an occasional whispered word. But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength. would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet ——!

He remembered how once he had been walking down a crowded street when a tremendous shout of hundreds of voices women’s voices — had burst from a side-street a little way ahead. It was a great formidable cry of anger and despair, a deep, loud ‘Oh-o-o-o-oh!’ that went humming on like the reverberation of a bell. His heart had leapt. It’s started! he had thought. A riot! The proles are breaking loose at last! When he had reached the spot it was to see a mob of two or three hundred women crowding round the stalls of a street market, with faces as tragic as though they had been the doomed passengers on a sinking ship. But at this moment the general despair broke down into a multitude of individual quarrels. It appeared that one of the stalls had been selling tin saucepans. They were wretched, flimsy things, but cooking-pots of any kind were always difficult to get. Now the supply had unexpectedly given out. The successful women, bumped and jostled by the rest, were trying to make off with their saucepans while dozens of others clamoured round the stall, accusing the stall-keeper of favouritism and of having more saucepans somewhere in reserve. There was a fresh outburst of yells. Two bloated women, one of them with her hair coming down, had got hold of the same saucepan and were trying to tear it out of one another’s hands. For a moment they were both tugging, and then the handle came off. Winston watched them disgustedly. And yet, just for a moment, what almost frightening power had sounded in that cry from only a few hundred throats! Why was it that they could never shout like that about anything that mattered?

He wrote:

Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.

He says, “If those holding depositors’ cash do not issue loans, they have no source of income to defray operating expenses.”

Your so-called ‘public bank’ would have to get its operating funds from the tax payers, or in other words, the ‘public bank’ would have to steal money from “the people” in order to be able to make loans to the other “the people”. That’s messed up, to say the least.

From the link above:

“The web and software now enable the elimination of the entire middleman skimming operation of banking. Those with capital can invest that capital directly in loans that the investors choose. Risk is distributed throughout the system, and the process of verifying credit scores, income, valuations, assets, and so on–the building blocks of risk assessment and a market for debt and cash–can also be automated. […]

Once we get rid of these obsolete middleman parasites–Wall Street, the banking sector and the Federal Reserve–we have a delightful question to answer: what else can we do with the $1.25 trillion we’ll save every year by eliminating these obsolete financial middleman parasites? A lot.”

[Greenbackers say:] “investments should be made on a nonprofit basis. A bank should not be run to make a profit. The owners of the bank should not attempt to make a profit. Some other principle of making loans in collecting them should be established, in order to replace the profit system.” …

As Gary North wrote in the link I posted, “Why should anyone imagine that government bureaucrats, who have no ownership of the money they lend, should make better decisions about where the money should be lent than bankers whose survival depends upon their ability to make loans that will be repaid with interest, thereby producing a profit for the bank?”

Your position is that of a statist and much the same as Ellen Brown’s, “She wants the government to run the economy, in the same way that Franklin Roosevelt ran the economy and Adolf Hitler ran the economy. She wants what conservatives call the corporate state. She wants an alliance between government and business. She does not like competition that is based on the profit motive.”

Your comment: “He says, “If those holding depositors’ cash do not issue loans, they have no source of income to defray operating expenses.”

“Your so-called ‘public bank’ would have to get its operating funds from the tax payers, or in other words, the ‘public bank’ would have to steal money from “the people” in order to be able to make loans to the other “the people”. That’s messed up, to say the least.”

NOT true, NOT IN THE LEAST!

Under ANPOG, government funds its own operations. In NO WAY would a public bank ‘steal’ anything from anyone.

And, not ~all~ loans would be interest free.

You obviously haven’t read anything of my blog, as otherwise you wouldn’t be making the ridiculous remarks as you have.

Either that, or you’re out merely to pick an argument, and try to support it with the entirely asinine.

Money – that is, real money (as opposed to legal fiat currency) is a fungible storehouse of value. It is intrinsically valuable (gold, silver) and does not rely on the force of a legal monopoly to support its value.

Such money – real money – cannot be created out of thin air. Hence, my question: Where does your government obtain its money? Government does not create wealth. It takes it – and redistributes it.

Your comment: “But – like the Bible – “general welfare” is subject to endless interpretation! There is no objective way to define it. What is “general”? And “welfare”?”

Where you err, and grievously so, is that you’re attempting to ‘interpret’ the Constitution by applying modern definitions to ancient terms. If you desire to comprehend the stated intent of words, and terms employed in document, then you must resort to using a dictionary of the period when the Constitution was composed.

May I suggest that you resort to using Webster’s 1828 Dictionary?

Your remark: “Inevitably, it ends up being defined by those who wield a legal monopoly on the use of violence. Some ruling others – as I explained previously.”

That’s certainly true under the current paradigm of government. But, it would not be so under the New Paradigm.

Usury was at one time, outlawed in the western world. It is a thoroughly egregious practice, which many times takes a toll on many lives. And while it is certainly true that a contract entered into by two parties is their own business, it is also true that almost all lenders knowingly deceive their clients. I think I don’t really need to remind you of the enormous ripoff which the large banks pulled on their clients, and got away with it. Under ANPOG that situation would never happen.

Your comments: “What is government? It is people who have asserted – via such things as documents, titles they give themselves and special outfits – a legal right to force other people to do as they say.

“What if I simply wish to be left in peace- and desire none of these “benefits”?”

Under ANPOG, your prior statement above would not be operative.

Regarding the latter remark, under ANPOG you would be free to decide for yourself what’s best for you. As long as you’re not harming any other person in a real and measurable way, then you’re free to do as you darned well please, and there would not a thing anyone would be able to do about it.

I disagree, Anpog. I believe Hamilton knew exactly what he was doing when that phrase was inserted into the Constitution.

But, it’s ultimately neither here nor there. The issue is one of fundamentals. Not what is written down somewhere.

Fundamentally, there is no such thing as “the people.” It is an abstraction, a rhetorical device. There are only specific, unique individuals – each possessed of exactly equal rights to be left in peace (provided they themselves are peaceful) and free to pursue their welfare, as they see it and see fit. There is no “general” welfare beyond the right to be left in peace just described. The Constitution’s use of the phrase is to impute far more than this – as is evident from the history of the Constitution in practice.

We can argue all day about it, but the ultimate problem is this idea of conceding authority to other people to rule over us. Which of course, few of us have ever actually done. The fact that a document exists in no way amounts to the “consent” of the “governed.” Nor that the “governed” are allowed to periodically vote for or against a given ruler over them.

In re “usury” –

This is subjective. How do you define interest that’s “excessive”? By what standard? And – what gives you the right to dictate to anyone the rate of interest they may ask of borrowers? Or that borrowers may choose to freely accept?

I’m not a fan of watersports or S&M, either. But if the parties freely consent – well, it’s their business. So long as they do not force me to participate – or to pay for it.

The fact that you personally do not approve of something is not – morally – justification to use force against those who freely choose to participate in whatever it is.

People who don’t wear seat belts – like me – might be more likely to get hurt or killed if we wreck. Does that mean someone else – this thing called government – has a moral right to intercede… for my own good?

How so? If the People —yes: THE PEOPLE— own their own bank, itself which would charge zero interest on loans for education, primary dwellings, and other necessary items such as primary transportation, precisely ~how~ is that to be seen as ‘paternalism at gunpoint’?

By making it a collective instrument, the individual is negated.
This is not a complex argument, nor a difficult one.

A herd follows.
Humans as a collective, follow.
And ultimately, it ALWAYS boils down to naked force and aggression. We just hide that, and turn our eyes.

The method the bank extracts repayment? Backed by FORCE.
The method the bank extracts interest? Backed by FORCE.
The laws of the land? Backed by FORCE.
“The will of the people”? It’s the mob, and what the mob wants, backed by pitchforks and torches – IE, FORCE.

And apply “the will of the people” to a dissenter, you get a LYNCH mob… Who rules by force.

The individual lemming is swept with the stampede, even over the cliff – IE, the individual is negated. The Individual doesn’t matter to the herd – the mob – The People.

Further, most people can’t find their @$$ with both hands and a set of directions…
Socrates, Christ, Gandhi, MLK, Malcom X, JFK, Lincoln, Mandela – these ALL were “retired” by “the will of the people.”

Think long and hard before you trust your fellow man – he has not changed in 5,000 years, and isn’t likely to become a new animal over night. He’ll knife you in the back so he can “console” your widow… While your blood is still hot. Or because he wants your food, home, car, watch, sneakers…
And is that not ALSO “the will of the people”? After all – he’s a people….

there are word co-dependents who are “in love”. sophistry begins at home, & far more often than charity.

there are word worshippers in the kings english church – spitting distance from the kings english “expression zones”. angl-icans regurgitating chalk lines over particle-waves, seeking crown-validation thereby, & insisting “this is the territory.”

there are innocent word children, word adolescents…being bootcamp-baked, over-baked, carbonized by their previously carbonized caretakers. “The book says, “We might be through with the past, but the past ain’t through with us.”

“the general welfare”

you’ll not find a dictionary, in 1828, or any other edition, that parses euphemism, points out barndoors, backdoors, trapdoors, at any level of sophist-ication, let alone the himalayan hamiltonian heights (“ian” because he was far from alone in the effort…it was a conspiracy, & the “good” anti-F youse were in on it, too…binary canaries in the coal mine are a tried & true ticket-selling trope…canaries = “rot”).

Sure gets funny thinkin’ ’bout money
Makin’ my daily bread,
The more you make, the more they take
You never seem to get ahead,
You break your backs just to pay your tax
Then you don’t like the way that it’s spent,
Somewhere back we jumped the track
This isn’t what the government…

Bet by now I’ve made a hundred thou
But I ain’t saved a dime,
The IRS came out best
They got my money every time,

It can’t be fair when the millionaire
Never has to give them a cent,
Sad to say we’ve lost the way
This isn’t what the government…

Then the war, don’t know what for
Somebody said it had to be fought,
I’se ‘sposed to go but I said no
‘Cause I’se afraid I might get shot,
but here I am on my hands and knees
scrubbin’ in my dungarees
I got burned but I finally learned
This is what the government

~ bread, “this isn’t what the governmeant”

if i had a pair of dimes for every “paradigm” proffered i could terraform the poles, throw a galtumbrella over ‘em, & leave the hemi-heads to their pushrod burningbendingbreaking…

lyrics below

It’s not
What you thought
When you first began it
You got
What you want
Now you can hardly stand it though,
By now you know
It’s not going to stop
It’s not going to stop
It’s not going to stop
‘Til you wise up

You’re sure
There’s a cure
And you have finally found it
You think
One drink
Will shrink you ’til you’re underground
And living down
But it’s not going to stop
It’s not going to stop
It’s not going to stop
‘Til you wise up

Prepare a list of what you need
Before you sign away the deed
‘Cause it’s not going to stop
It’s not going to stop
It’s not going to stop
‘Til you wise up
No, it’s not going to stop
‘Til you wise up
No, it’s not going to stop
So just…give up

The United States government has absolutely no need to collect taxes from the people. This is so, because —Constitutionally speaking— the United States possess the authority to publish all the money it needs to accomplish whatever task it must under the U.S. Constitution.

Were the United States to go back to issuing debt-free money, and KILL the so-called ‘federal reserve’ (arresting, charging, and hanging the share holders of that obscenity), then there would be no such thing as a ‘national debt,’ period.

But why cede to this thing called government a legal monopoly to issue money? If money is a fungible form of value, a way to facilitate trade – then why not leave people free to choose the means? Whether precious metals or some other thing?

The root problem is this idea of granting some people (government) dominion over other people.

Well, since the U.S. Constitution under Article I, Section 8, clause (5) gives the United States the power to coin/mint/print money, and regulate its value, the its a moot point.

My suggestion is that ALL currency (anything with a face value) should never be allowed to be used outside the shores, borders, or territories of a nation. That would eliminated currency manipulation. Any external transactions would be via precious metals, or other internationally recognised medium.

Additionally, privately owned banks would be outlawed, right along with corporations, both public, and private. Only public banks, and credit unions would be the only financial institutions allowed.

Insofar as government, under ANPOG government would possess no power beyond what the People expressly allow.

Why the reflexive deference to a very flawed piece of paper? The Constitution is not holy writ; in fact, it is to a great extent the root cause of many of our current miseries. Just consider the “general welfare” clause, for openers. I, for one, do not particularly care what arbitrary power the Constitution gives to “the United States – that is, to the people who presume to rule me without my consent. Or rather, I do no accept it as rightful/legitimate.

As Spooner rightly noted, either the Constitution was meant to take away our liberties or has proved powerless to prevent that from happening.

What is a public bank? Do you mean, a government bank? One with a legal monopoly – enforced/imposed at gunpoint?

It seems that is what you do mean – since you state that “privately owned banks would be outlawed.”

How is that compatible with a society premised on the rights of individuals?

You appear to be advocating some sort of benevolent authoritarianism. But can authoritarianism ever be benevolent?

[1] Yes, the U.S. Constitution is a flawed document. However, that doesn’t mean that it should be scrapped. Rather, it should be amended to correct those flaws.

[2] The general welfare clause has largely been misinterpreted to mean something other than what was meant. Properly read, the ‘welfare of the United States’ means just that: The United States. In the Constitution, there are three entities spoken of, and those are the People, the several States, and the United States. This point is made even clearer when you read the Tenth Article of Amendment.

[3] I agree with your sentiments regarding those whom presume to rule.

[4] The Constitution is without the ability to do anything. The reason so many transgressions against its stated intent have happened is because very few people desire to take up the challenge to correct the matter.

[5] By public bank, I mean exactly that which exists in North Dakota. Yes, it owned by, and run by the government for the benefit of the People. So in reality, it is the People’s bank. Privately owned banks have been the cause of so much misery from the get-go.

[6] Your question: “How is that compatible with a society premised on the rights of individuals?”
If taking away the ability to harm people through egregious money manipulation, usury, and theft is supposed to be compatible with the rights of individuals, then you’re going to have to explain that one!

[7] Your statement: “You appear to be advocating some sort of benevolent authoritarianism.”
Well, I can see that you’ve not read my blog page, as otherwise you wouldn’t be suggesting any such thing. In point of fact, what I suggest is anything but authoritarianism. Under A New Paradigm Of Government, the People would be far, far freer than they’ve ever been, yet still have the full benefit of government when it is needed.

But – like the Bible – “general welfare” is subject to endless interpretation! There is no objective way to define it. What is “general”? And whose “welfare”?

Each of us has our own view as regards what constitutes our individual welfare; this will vary from individual to individual. There is no “general” welfare. It’s a weasel phrase – a rhetorical sleight of hand used to attack individual rights by pretending to defend them. People assume good things when they hear “general welfare”.. but who gets to define it? And enforce it?

Inevitably, it ends up being defined by those who wield a legal monopoly on the use of violence. Some ruling others – as I explained previously.

Lending money at interest is only a rights violation if the contract is entered into against the free will of the parties involved.

You wish to borrow money. I have the money to lend. I agree to lend it – at a given rate of interest (whatever it may be). You are free to accept my terms – or not. Just as you are free to buy – or not – a car or house I advertise for sale at a given price.

How have anyone’s rights been violated?

What is “usurious” interest?

Are you saying I haven’t got the right to ask for whatever interest rate I deem to be appropriate? That you have a right to force me to lend you money at a rate you deem appropriate?

The “full benefit” of government?

What is government? It is people who have asserted – via such things as documents, titles they give themselves and special outfits – a legal right to force other people to do as they say.

What if I simply wish to be left in peace- and desire none of these “benefits”?

Eric, back in the 1990s (might have even been 1980s), there was a liberty-minded organization based in Oklahoma called the Freeman Education Association. They did an excellent historical analysis on the subject of the “general welfare” clause which was presented at one of their seminars. Here are excerpts from that presentation:

———————————————————————-

At the inception of our country as we know it, under the United States
Constitution, we had two principal players. One was Alexander Hamilton,
the other James Madison. They had very different views regarding the
new government they were forming.

Madison wanted a central government of very limited and specific powers.
In contrast, Hamilton desired a very powerful central government with
virtually unlimited powers. During the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton
made many proposoals towards this end. They were all rejected. After that,
Hamilton silently acquiesed to the idea of having a very limited government
of few and defined powers. That is, he basically kicked back and did not
say much of anything about it. The limited powers thus granted were defined
in Article 1, Section 8.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution begins with a statement that greatly
concerned the anti-Federalists at the time it was written. (Anti-Federalists
were those opposed to strong central government.) It reads thusly:

Sect. 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect
taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and
provide for the common defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the
United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States.

This was supposed to be a LIMITATION on the powers of the central government.
However, the anti-Federalists and many of the states were very concerned
during the ratification process about that term “GENERAL WELFARE.” Therefore
Madison calmed their fears by stating that this was in fact a limitation on
Federal power, and that the only things the Federal government would be able
to tax and spend on would be those items enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
Taxing and spending for any other purposes would be prohibited.

There were very heated debates over this issue but Madison won out; the
correct interpretation of the Constitution was that of granting limited
powers and the “general welfare” clause was a limitation on what government
could do. This is known as the “Madisonian Constitution.”

Then, things started going wrong in the 1930s (actually, as many are
aware, a lot the problems started even before then). During the 1930s we
had the FDR administration come into power. This administration had
a specific agenda; that agenda was to overthrow the constitutional republic
of this country. This is well documented. Unfortunately they succeeded,
and their conduct was sanctioned by the United States Supreme Court; and
it has been continually sanctioned by the Supreme Court since 1936.

This is THE Constitutional issue. This is where they usurped the power,
unfortunately anchored in the Constitution itself by a gross misinterpretation
by the United States Supreme Court.

“Well, since the U.S. Constitution under Article I, Section 8, clause (5) gives the United States the power to coin/mint/print money, and regulate its value, the its a moot point.”

Well, no. By what legitimate authority does that “constitution” give government any power at all? Did you sign that document agreeing to it? I did not, and would not. If you did or would, by what legitimate authority could you possibly make that agreement for ME, or for your future children and grandchildren?

No person has any legitimate authority to compel others to do their will, nor to delegate such power over others in any way. “Consent of the governed” is meaningless unless each individual is free to agree or opt out.

When some people are given power to impose their will on others, tyranny is the inevitable result. And tinkering with peripheral systems and terms changes nothing. You either own yourself and your property, or you do not.

In 1946, Fed chairman Beardsley Ruml authored an article in the “American Affairs” journal declaring that taxes for the purpose of raising revenue were obsolete. A PDF of this publication may be found here, with Ruml’s article on page 35:

Posting from and living in the Great Canadian North I must declare that I have never heard of a “Temporary and Conditional Use Tax”
which you guys are paying! Only vehicles and houses are affected you say? What about small counter top appliances, the hamster cage and especially a coffin for as long as you occupy it?

It’s a term Eric is using to illustrate the fact that if we don’t pay or use our property in ways government approves of, government seizes our property.

Increasingly, various things result in property seizure. Illinois has a law that if you make a hidden compartment in your car to hide something from cops they take your car. So if I were to make a hidden compartment in my car to secure a dozen jelly doughnuts, my car would be forfeit if discovered. A violation of conditional use. If one were to leave an unregistered unlicensed car on his property where the government employees could see it, they have decided they may take it in many places in the USA. If one commits one act of a variety regarding recreational substances in his home or vehicle either or both may be taken. Zoning laws, EPA, city laws, county laws, federal laws, etc all restrict use of ‘real’ property, violate these and face a variety of penalties including loss of property.

So much in the USA is about taking stuff from people by using the law. Land of the free they say.

Remember the scene in The Magnificent Seven when Calvera (Eli Wallach) and his gang of bandits arrive at the Mexican village to rob them of food and supplies? Luckily for the villagers, Calvera and his men soon depart after grabbing enough to satisfy their current needs although it is understood that they will eventually return for more. What if the bandits had stuck around to allegedly micro-manage all of the villager’s affairs by imposing a multitude of taxes and regulations? Quality of life for the average villager would have gone from difficult to suffocating and intolerable. Sound familiar? I prefer bandits over the larger more organized version called government because they at least leave you alone most of the time.

We indeed effectively own nothing in this system. The systems of serfdom and slavery have been recreated, it just isn’t called that today. Few people even realize it. If you point it out to them they become angry and/or think you a kook.

I’ve read some of “The Rockefeller File” ( http://educate-yourself.org/ga/RFcontents.shtml ) at least what I think are the important parts which really aren’t so much about the Rockefellers but the view they brought in. In this case that is the idea of effective ownership. Not really owning something but ultimately controlling it.

As to stuff I found I can afford the stuff, I can’t afford the taxes. And that’s what I really hate about this system. Saving up for something is ultimately pointless because it’s the taxes that are unaffordable and the taxes have to paid or else. It’s either get on the hamster wheel constantly earning money or live poorly. But that’s modern freedom. We’re still free if if we choose to live with nothing.

We indeed effectively own nothing in this system. The systems of serfdom and slavery have been recreated, it just isn’t called that today. Few people even realize it. If you point it out to them they become angry and/or think you a kook.

Just as often they’ll try to rationalize it away by trying to redefine “property” according to what was washed into their brains by the government indoctrination centers. This usually manifests itself in their refusal to acknowledge the simple fact that anything that a higher power can take away from you, for any reason, is, by definition, not “property” at all. The average Clover will simply deny vociferously that this is the case, spewing ad hominems while refusing to present a clear alternative definition of their own. It is at this point that the sensible person simply walks away, realizing that trying to discuss anything grounded in reason with such people is violation of the Confucian (and biblical) admonition against trying to reason with imbeciles.

Annual inspection is bad enough, but Virginia had semiannual vehicle inspections until 1982. That’s right, you had to get your car inspected every six months.

We’re caught between a rock and a hard place on this one aspect of vehicle ownership. If we eliminate inspections at your friendly neighborhood garage, then the cops are liable to institute checkpoints for just that purpose. They’ll inspect your car at the side of the road, not just for equipment problems, but also for contraband while they’re looking. And they’ll become even more overweening and even more prone to stop and ticket you for any “issues” with your ride. For public safety, you see.

The problem is that it will take only a few serious accidents involving poorly maintained cars to cause a cop crackdown of this type. I think we all know people who really would let their brakes wear out, or don’t even know that brakes do wear out, and they would be the cause of such a crackdown.

Maybe that sleazy inspection every year is actually the lesser of two evils. I hate to say this, but give that some thought. Government never totally gives up power or the ability to create mischief.

Inspections only line the pockets of those in the revenue stream of doing inspections, repairs, auto salvage, and car sales. Illinois has no inspections other than state EPA emissions tests. There have been no crashes, no wrecks, nothing that has made it to the news to show why such nonsense would be needed. It’s an entirely an exercise in whatifism fabricated to extract money from the population.

It’s the same way in the State I live in, too, BrentP.
It’s just the opposite from ekrampitzjr’s guess as to how things turn out without an inspection.
In the 1980’s the state gunverment here had imposed vehicle inspections for a few years. During that time my friends would relay to me stories about getting pulled over for “suspected saftey violations” where a cop would do things like pull a Quarter out of their pocket and measure the depth of the treads on the tires. Things like that were common.
During the years of the required inspections cops were “more overweening and even more prone to stop and ticket you for any “issues” with your ride.”
Then when the state dropped the inspections those petty harassments disappeared.

Since they stopped doing inspections, the only equipment a cop ever checkout on my car was a burnt out headlight or tail light. And I drove some pretty crappy cars.

No property tax on vehicles here, and no “inspections.” My 14 year old car “registration” is $36. (the minimum, no matter how much of a beater the car is) and the minimum mandatory insurance is $200 (for me). Gas tax is horrible, obviously, and now ALL of it has alcohol in it. sigh… That’s still $2,000. + down the drain for just the last eight years since I moved to Wyoming.

But compared to wherever you are, the rent to “own” my car is still small. And too few people seem to care about it.

“But compared to wherever you are, the rent to “own” my car is still small. And too few people seem to care about it.”
Exactly the problem, ML.
No one cares how ho teh water gets until they’re suddenly aware they’re cooked; by then it’s too late.

That code is in place of a date so we can keep them organized and in sequence. Since I don’t always post them the same day they are written, dating them got very awkward. I’d just as soon he found some other way to designate the columns myself, but this works for him. Just ignore it please. 🙂

There are some serious disadvantages here, of course… not being near a city, and not having many jobs outside of oil, coal and other rough, outdoor type things… are two big ones for most folks. The weather is hardly a barrier – unless you insist on Florida. LOL And those who do are very welcome to it. How wonderful that this big country has options to suit most people. Well, except for those of us who want complete freedom, of course. But you can get mighty close.

Eric those “civil agencies” posing as govt as the publicans, the cannibals of the ages feasting on the flesh of others by rite of “blueblood”.
Here is a example even bigger of the human trafficking publicans dividing up the flesh of the peoples:
one city in one county in one state in these prison industry colonies
called US CORP of the PUBLICANShttp://www.manta.com/mb_55_F30DF000_23Z/correctional_institutions/sacramento_ca
look deeply at all of the parasite corporations, leeching off the
public farm grounds of california. dozens of privately owned companies
and thousands of individual cannibals within each division.
these are all Correctional Corp USA that holds over 2 million
inmates,, funny word “inmate”, you are just a battery to be drained of
energy by the cannibal tribes that call themselves LAW ENFORCEMENT.

—
“The only people who call conspiracies
‘ theories’ are the conspirators.”

PUBLICAN [SMITH]
The class designated by this word in the New Testament were employed
as collectors of the Roman revenue. The Roman senate farmed the
vectigalia (direct taxes) and the portorin (customs) to capitalists
who undertook to pay a given sum into the treasury (in publicum), and
so received the name of publicani . Contracts of this kind fell
naturally into the hands of the equites , as the richest class of
Romans. They appointed managers, under whom were the portitores , the
actual custom-house officers, who examined each bale of goods,
exported or imported, assessed its value more or less arbitrarily,
wrote out the ticket, and enforced payment. The latter were commonly
natives of the province in which they were stationed as being brought
daily into contact with all classes of the population. The name
pubicani was used popularly, and in the New Testament exclusively, of
the portitores . The system was essentially a vicious one. The
portitores were encouraged in the most vexatious or fraudulent
exactions and a remedy was all but impossible. They overcharged
whenever they had an opportunity, (Luke 3:13) they brought false
charges of smuggling in the hope of extorting hush-money (Luke 19:8)
they detained and opened letters on mere suspicion. It was the basest
of all livelihoods. All this was enough to bring the class into ill
favor everywhere. In Judea and Galilee there were special
circumstances of aggravation. The employment brought out all the
besetting vices of the Jewish character. The strong feeling of many
Jews as to the absolute unlawfulness of paying tribute at all made
matters worse. The scribes who discussed the question, (Matthew 22:15)
for the most part answered it in the negative. In addition to their
other faults, accordingly, the publicans of the New Testament were
regarded as traitors and apostates, defiled by their frequent
intercourse with the heathen, willing tools of the oppressor. The
class thus practically excommunicated furnished some of the earliest
disciples both of the Baptist and of our Lord. The position of
Zacchaeus as a “chief among the publicans,” (Luke 19:2) implies a
gradation of some kind among the persons thus employed.

Today’s Roman caste system is as unequal today as 2000 years ago. It
needs to be exposed for what it is, repeatedly. I shall continue using
the truth. thanks for the support.﻿

Stop whining. The glass is not half empty.
By bringing in millions of third world wetbacks into an economy with increasing double digit unemployment, Washington is teaching us how to adjust to living in abject poverty .
Don’ t worry, be happy. Our grandchildren will all have great jobs as beggars.

Don’ t worry, be happy. Our grandchildren will all have great jobs as beggars.

And here’s something that you can lay steady money on: those grandparents who either “gave away the farm;” rolled over played fat, dumb, and happy while the farm was being given away, or who proclaimed loudly to their children that giving away the farm would lead to unimaginable prosperity in the “global economy” will be the very first and loudest to chide these poor grandchildren for not “making something of themselves” or not “getting off your ass and a job like your elders did.”

Fred, you ain’t just shittin there. Who need college when your options are draining fries or cleaning toilets. Yep, we have some “good” job in Tx. now, almost twice the pay of what they paid in 1970. Sure, they’re dangerous, bust ass jobs with high maintenance costs for the worker. So if you’re a strong guy with a will to endure whatever the job requires, then you can make wages accroding to inflation from the 70’s we would have laughed at. Now, we’re just grateful for a job.

My private forum has been speaking in the last two days about wages and qualifications. Most of my old college buddies making high six figure salaries are so out of touch with what regular people make now it’s disgusting. Only a couple understand that tens of millions of people are off the rolls of unemployed since they have had to give up due to no available jobs. Once the corporations took over this country we reverted to third world everything. I could care less BO’s supposedly welfare program(All congress is guilty in so many ways I won’t elucidate)supplies cell phones but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Plenty of people are really starving in this country. If you want to believe the right wing extremists who say otherwise, be my guest.

I’ve figured something out. Just under six figures isn’t even enough for one person these days in much of the country where the jobs are if you just want oh what the same profession provided in the 1970s.

Even in my area – “inexpensive,” relative to most areas – one needs to be pulling in at least $60k or so just to tread water. This assumes a modest-sized home, no car payment or large revolving debt (i.e., credit cards). This will just about cover day-to-day and month-to-month expenses…

Because – work it out – even a $60k salary is really about $40-45k take-home. About $3,700 a month. Most people will have a mortgage payment around $1,200 or so. Now you’re down to $2,500. Figure another $1,000 a month for utilities and food. $200 month for gas. Leaves about $1,300 – from which you’ll still need to subtract incidentals. Doesn;t leave a lot of reserve to deal with unexpected expenses – much less wiggle room to save.

We’ve paid about $20,000 in property taxes on the house over the past ten years. (And this is “cheap” compared with most areas.)

I’d sure like to have that $20k in my bank account…. but “the children” (other people’s children) and the make-work salaries of government school indoctrinators and wet nurses trump my right to what used to be my money.

Even in my area – “inexpensive,” relative to most areas – one needs to be pulling in at least $60k or so just to tread water. This assumes a modest-sized home, no car payment or large revolving debt (i.e., credit cards). This will just about cover day-to-day and month-to-month expenses…

This is why I ROTFLMFAO whenever people talk about a certain region having a “cheap cost of living.” Bullshit. There is no such thing as “cheap cost of living” anywhere in Amerika today. Between the inflated, ever-depreciating FEDscrip that passes as the national currency and the parasitic taxation of same that occurs at all levels of gunvermint, no matter where you choose to plant your arse for domicile purposes, you’re going to pay through the nose and out your ass (unless you choose to live out in the middle of the wilderness on public property, completely off the grid without any of the conveniences of modern civilization, and even then, gunvermint will catch up with you in the end [just ask one Theodore Kaczinsky]).

“This is why I ROTFLMFAO whenever people talk about a certain region having a “cheap cost of living.” Bullshit. There is no such thing as “cheap cost of living” anywhere in Amerika today.”

Depends on your definition, liberranter. I have a nice log home just outside a little town. My income is less than $1,000. a month. I have zero debt. My needs are small and my life simple, but I am comfortable.

“Cheap?” Seems to me that’s asking for the cost to be lower than the value received. That only happens when some people are able to steal from other people. 🙂

I can only speak directly to the situation in my industry – publishing – but based on what I’ve read and seen and know of with regard to friends/family in other industries – it is bad out there. Government “work” is booming. So also shyster finance/speculation. But the rest of the economy – the real economy – is torpid, depressed.

Did you know that a book publisher has to pay big box retailers like Barnes & Noble to carry an author’s book? Which effectively kills the chances of any book not written by a known/established (i.e., NYT best seller) author from ever being put on shelves.

What’s happening is the creation of a professional proletariat. Educated, skilled – and underemployed or not employed at all.

I don’t think there’s ever been such a situation, historically speaking.

Such a situation is unsustainable.
These educated people are in demand somewhere, because someone can profit from their skil and/or knowledge. They tend to leave.
Failing that, they find ways to “act out,” which leads to widespread violence and panic.

Examples would be electricians, plumbers, contractors, engineers, software programmers, lawyers, doctors, chemists, even mechanics. Tons of substances we use every day can be used to ill effect on the human body, or the machinery of society.
that gets people higher up the chain upset, which results in over-corrections: Police violence & crackdowns, martial law. The “wealthy” fleeing in droves. Capital and assets destroyed or “re-allocated.”

Think of a Newton’s Cradle, only instead of losing momentum with each swing, it gains. Energy is added to the system. So, one ball hits the array, and one ball moves away at the far end. It reaches the maximum height (conservation of energy, conservation of momentum) and then comes back down. Hits the stack, first ball heads up. After a certain time, it will consume the energy through friction forces.

In the societal version, well – the drug problem is out of control so we establish warrantless searches, draconian sentencing, asset forfeiture, and turn a blind eye to police brutality.
The ball drops…
And the reaction is, more force from the criminal element. There’s money to be made, and you need to defend your selling grounds…. Also, now you require more partnerships – organization of crime, say. And occasionally there’s a dead cop. People get upset… The ball drops…

Now, we need to check EVERYONE for drugs…. Anything that MIGHT have been exposed to drugs needs to be forfeited immediately, etc. Ball drops…

The mandatory state inspections have proven to be a joke and since repealed in many states. New Jersey a couple of years ago repealed their state inspections. The problem is corporate lobbyists (Bribed) contributed vast sums to government to force the sheeple to bring their cars in for a fleecing once a year. In PA in certain areas an inspection can even go as high as several hundred dollar$ yearly for extra emission testing….to protect the environment. Eric, your article is true, we never truly own anything if you are forced to pay rent.

My neighbors who have been here for 40 years told me the yearly “rent” taxes used to be $40…. considered cheap but then went up by several thousand $$$$$$ over the years to the point they started selling off their land to pay off the yearly fleecing ………now they own near nothing.

Quick true story about a lady robbed by the state in my area. A ladies husband passed away, she used her insurance settlement to pay off her house and all was well. Her $280,000 house was unfortunately delinquent in property taxes by the sum of $6.30 so the state auctioned off her $280,000 paid off house to a buyer for $115,000. The women with her young children were evicted after a black robe (judge) declared she must have known about the $6.30.

And when you sell on that vehicle to another party, they’ll get to pay sales tax. Which, since you bought it used, will be the third time Uncle wets his beak for the same item.

Yet somehow all that tribute just isn’t enough. Every year there’s a new highway spending bill that goes through Congress, who spends weeks figuring out who’s going to be in a tough election or who’s earned enough “cred” in the gang to get the new highways, needed or not. Sure, they put the jobs out for the “lowest bid” but because the corrupt unions managed to get rules put in that require “prevailing wages” to be paid to the ditch diggers. While I’m fine with working men getting an honest dollar for an honest day’s work, the prevailing wage has nothing to do with reality and only exists for the homies in Congress to keep that sweet Union money coming in.

Speaking of which, where’s the outrage over the president’s decree that contractors’ minimum wage will now be $10.10/hr? Did anyone even ask where that money is going to be coming from?

That $10.10/ hr for .gov contractors is a joke. If they actually pay any of their minions less than that, they will just upcharge uncle sugar for the additional payroll expense. We the people foot the bills for all .gov related activities. We fund our own poverty. Things that make you go hmmm. If I didn’t have employees, and a family to care for, I might chuck the whole enchilada just to starve the beast a bit. When I pull back and look at it all, I don’t know how the whole system can be anything but a well thought out and executed wealth strip mining operation with Us as the resource to be exploited.

Podesta said that the president was committed to using executive orders to pass regulations under the Clean Air Act to limit carbon dioxide emissions that they say cause global warming.

I know I’m tilting at windmills here, but isn’t it past time that someone reminded the current Sock Puppet-in-Chief that “Executive Orders” are nothing but directives to Executive Agencies to obey the laws enacted by Congress – NOT imperial fiats?

In one of his films Ah-nuld sneered at a poster of Stallone as Rambo or Rocky. The idea was that Stallone was not pro body builder caliber.

Now ironically, Stallone looks waaay better than Ah-nuld.

Actually, if truth be told, that’s not really the look people should shoot for. In my opinion it’s far better to look like Sam Elliott and Scott Glenn. Those guys are not muscle-bound. They are lean and wiry. People age much better that way.

Arnold – my supposition here – got as big as he did with pharmacological “help.” Naturally, he is not a heavyweight. He pushed himself into that class with steroids – and now he’s paying a heavy price.

Getting fit is – as I see it – a lot more important than getting big.

I have taken this lesson to heart. I’m down to 194.5 from my peak of 217. I’m not as strong – as defined by my bench press – but I feel much healthier. I know I look better!

I admire Stallone. This is pure conjecture, because I don’t know the guy – but he seems to be a not-asshole while Arnold seems to be a gigantic one.

Apparently Ah-nuld was a bully too when he was younger. He talked about how he got a kick out of beating up weaker non-Austrians.

Unfortunately Stallone is a gun-grabber. He once mouthed off about how if you want an M-16/AR-15 you ought to join the Marines, or words to that effect.

Believe it or not, Brad Pitt is one of the most level headed stars when it comes to politics. He strongly supports private gun ownership and despite the fact that he acted in the movie “Seven Years in Tibet,” he made a point of dissociating himself from the sanctimonious anti-China politics of the film.

@liberranter- You are almost right. Congress has chickened out on making laws a long time ago and has given that administrative ability to the unelected agencies like the EPA. Just look at the Obamacare monstrosity. All those rules & penalties are written by the agencies themselves. And the prez tells the agencies what to do. The structure is a Dictatorship no matter what the fluffy fool’em today media says.

I think a nice grassroots theme for this year’s mid-term Congressional elections (for those who put any stock in or give a shit about elections) would be “Why bother? You useless fuckers ceded your authority long ago, so why should your offices continue to exist at all?”

POPULAR CATEGORY

Eric started out writing about cars for mainstream media outlets such as The Washington Times, Detroit News and Free Press, Investors Business Daily, The American Spectator, National Review, The Chicago Tribune and Wall Street Journal.